Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]

Lords Reason for disagreeing to a Commons amendment, considered.

Lords Reason:

The Lords disagree to the amendment mile by the Commons in page 4, line 23 (leave out from 'business' to 'enter' in line 24), for the following Reason:

Because it is desirable that, so far as possible, the provisions of the Medway Council Bill remain in keeping with the corresponding provisions of the Kent County Council Bill.

Ordered,

That this House do not insist on their amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.—[Mr. Paul Clark.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Budget

Mr. Desmond Browne: When she last met representatives of business and trade unions to discuss the implications of the Budget for Scotland. [155169]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I have regular meeting with members of the business community and trade unions in Scotland to discuss a wide range of issues, including the positive impact that this Budget has had in Scotland.

Mr. Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, immediately after the Budget, in my local newspaper, the Kilmarnock Standard, local business men welcomed the measures announced in the Budget for the regeneration of areas of high deprivation? What consultations has she had with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about the implementation of those measures in Scotland? As they are to be applied from a £1 billion budget on a ward-by-ward basis, will she tell us what criteria will be applied to determine which wards will receive funds from this substantial investment?

Mrs. Liddell: As my hon. Friend is aware, I recently visited his constituency and was much impressed by the

job action teams and the incentives that exist to target help towards specific areas. These matters have been discussed with the Chancellor, and in relation to the targeting, we will take as our example much of the useful work being done in East Ayrshire and in my hon. Friend's constituency. We shall also consult widely.

Sir Robert Smith: In the Secretary of State's discussions with businesses and the trade unions, does she explain to the businesses why the Chancellor insists on making the tax system more complex every year, adding more burdens on the businesses that have to try to administer it? At the same time, does she have an explanation for them as to why vital spending on public services such as hospitals and education was cut in the first two years of her Government? Even by their third year, the block grant was still some £200 million less in real terms than that left for spending in Scotland by the outgoing Conservative Government.

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we said before we were elected that, for the first two years, we would stick with Tory spending limits so that we could correct the mess that the economy was in. As a result of the economic policies pursued by this Government, we have been able to secure £3.4 billion extra in public spending in Scotland, and in his recent Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to put an additional £200 million to good use in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman fails to realise that corporation tax in this country is now at an historically low level and if we take all employer taxation in the United Kingdom together and compare it with that of our European partners, we have a lower rate even than Germany or France. Sound economic policies on the part of the Government mean that we are moving away from the boom and bust of the previous Administration and avoiding the fantasy economics of some other parties that serve in this House.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Glasgow nautical college is now recruiting more than 1,000 cadets a year for training as officer cadets in the Merchant Navy? That is in large part due to the incentives provided by the Government in successive Budgets. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming that big increase in recruitment and in encouraging young people all over Scotland to look to the British Merchant Navy for a worthwhile living?

Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I know how important it is for his constituency that there should be so many new recruits to the Merchant Navy, and, indeed, to the Royal Navy. It is a sign of the well-rounded nature of our policies that we can point to successes in every part of the economy. I am sure that there will be great rejoicing in my hon. Friend's constituency that the merchant fleet is now expanding.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: In the Secretary of State's discussions, were the badly designed climate change levy and the ill-conceived aggregates tax mentioned? Will she attempt to quantify the job losses in manufacturing and quarrying resulting from those taxes? As the aggregates tax is


designed to be a flat-rate UK tax, and Scottish quarrying products tend to be of lower value than those elsewhere, is it not, in effect, a poll tax on Scottish quarrying?

Mrs. Liddell: It is good to see the hon. Gentleman in his place. It must be that time of year again. We shall be expecting to see the Loch Ness monster soon. The only difference is that the Loch Ness monster is around rather more frequently than the hon. Gentleman.
I have watched with interest recent statements on the environment from the hon. Gentleman's party. The Scottish National party seems to be turning its back on the environment—indeed, there seems to be an international trend in that direction. The Government's economic policies strike a balance that takes into account the needs of the environment, as was shown in my right hon. Friend's Budget a month ago. The hon. Gentleman's party cannot have its cake and eat it. It cannot say that it wishes to reduce fuel taxes, for example, while claiming to be the friend of the environment.

Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Notwithstanding the excellent Budget and its importance to all in Scotland, my right hon. Friend will agree that there are grave concerns about the tourism industry in Scotland because of the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak. Will she repeat the Government's message that Scotland is very much open for business and a safe travel destination, as that is vital to the tourism industry? Will she confirm that we are considering initiatives in Scotland, Europe and north America in particular to promote tourism in Scotland?

Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point: we must say again and again that Scotland is open for business. Those of us who were in Scotland yesterday know that it is looking particularly beautiful. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), the First Minister, is in the United States promoting the Scottish tourism industry and we have worked with the Scottish Executive who have put together a package to assist the tourism industry, especially in Dumfries and Galloway.
I call on all hon. Members who are looking forward to the Easter recess to bear it in mind that Scotland has a great deal to offer and is open for business. We support the "Come back to the countryside" campaign and it is important for the health and well-being of our tourism industry that we have a good season. All hon. Members can do their bit to help.

Mr. John Bercow: The Secretary of State's complacency is both unwarranted and stomach turning. Why does not she simply own up to the fact that nothing in the 2001 Budget remotely atones for the facts that the Government introduced no fewer than 3,865 regulations in 2000, adversely impacting on Scottish business; that small business owners are, on average, spending an extra six hours a week complying with red tape; and that the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce concludes that the Government are dramatically increasing the regulatory burdens that threaten small business?

Mrs. Liddell: We have a Tory getting to his feet in the House at Scottish questions to talk about atonement. The Conservative party was responsible for the rape of our

industrial heartlands, but the hon. Gentleman comes to the House to talk about atonement. I regularly meet Scottish businesses and I know the extent to which they recognise what the Government have achieved for Scotland in terms of stability after the boom and bust of the Conservative party and our competence in the face of the incompetence of the Conservative party.
The hon. Gentleman should use his Easter recess to come to Scotland where he will see the lowest levels of unemployment, the highest levels of employment and a business community that works in partnership with the Government and the Scottish Executive to build a Scotland for the 21st century and to get over the disgrace of the policies of the previous Administration.

Mr. Frank Roy: May I tell my right hon. Friend that pensioners in my constituency are happy with the results of the Budget: a free TV licence and a £200 winter fuel allowance? When does she intend to discuss with the Scottish Conservative party its plans to abolish those much-needed gains?

Mrs. Liddell: That is a good point. My constituency is adjacent to my hon. Friend's and the £200 winter fuel allowance was greatly welcomed by my constituents. It is interesting that the Scottish National party was talking about a cold weather allowance in 1997—one of £9.20. The £200 that has gone to many pensioners in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend is probably the biggest sum that many of them have had in their hand at any one time. It is safe under this Government; it certainly would not be safe under the Opposition in either guise, be it Conservative or Scottish nationalist.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Talking of budgets, which represent the season of the year that brings the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) to the House, and the block grant, which is spent in Scotland after a vote by the House, when will the Government publish the guidelines for the coming general election in respect of how the Scottish Executive and other devolved bodies will deal with announcements about local expenditure during the campaign? We understand that such guidance is being prepared. When will it be produced?

Mrs. Liddell: My initial response is to ask what the hon. Gentleman is frightened of. I have the impression that he is frightened of the competence of the Scottish Executive, working in partnership with the Government here at Westminster.
We have shown the strength of partnership, and its value to the whole Scottish economy. At any forthcoming general election—and we have from now until May 2002 to prepare for one that may come at any time—I shall be happy to put before the Scottish people this Government's record of improving economic conditions in Scotland, and bringing social justice to Scotland. I should be more than happy to contrast that with the social division represented by the hon. Gentleman's policies.

Mr. Grieve: That answer was profoundly unsatisfactory. The question was very simple. When elections to the Scottish Parliament were held, guidelines were issued about how the Government here should react and how the civil service should conduct itself. When shall we see such


guidelines for the general election—or are we to assume that the current attitude is not what we would expect of a Government and a civil service, but what we would expect of a Maxwell corporation?
This is a serious issue. I ask the right hon. Lady to assure the House that the guidelines will be issued, and issued in sufficient time for the matter to be properly considered.

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware that we have until 2002 before a general election need be called in Scotland. We are getting on with the business of building a better Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the late Robert Maxwell. Perhaps he and his hon. Friends will tell the House about the role played by prominent Conservatives such as the late Michael Havers, whose desk I inherited when I went to try and sort out the mess, and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who could have done much to help the Maxwell pensioners but whose heels we could not see for dust.
Labour has delivered for pensioners. Indeed, 900,000 pensioners in Scotland will benefit directly as a consequence of the Chancellor's Budget.

Oral Answers to Questions — Chester Street Holdings

Mr. Tony Worthington: What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the collapse of Chester Street Holdings and its implications for sufferers from asbestos-related diseases in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [155170]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I am well aware of the difficulties relating to Chester Street. I have had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and also with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We well understand the concerns of those who are suffering from asbestos-related diseases, and we are working very hard across government and with the insurance industry to alleviate those concerns as far as we possibly can.

Mr. Worthington: I thank my right hon. Friend for her active involvement. Her record on pensions mis-selling gives great credibility to her efforts.
As my right hon. Friend knows, I believe that our first duty is to the sick and dying: they must be paid full compensation, and not lose out because of Chester Street. Is it not appalling, however, that Mr. Robert Hardy, chief executive of both Iron Trades and Chester Street, should have sold Iron Trades to QBE for less than its book price, then joined it as chief executive and taken £1 million out of his various firms? Is that not disgraceful, and does it not demonstrate that we need a full independent inquiry into this sorry matter?

Mrs. Liddell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the campaign that he has waged on behalf of sufferers from asbestos-related diseases for so many years. The last thing anyone needed was the scandal of the collapse of Chester Street, and I share his anxiety about some of the activities that went on.
The provisional liquidator is examining the state of Chester Street. It will be for the provisional liquidator, in the first instance, to investigate what went on in Chester Street. If he turns up anything that gives rise to further inquiries, the Government will not hesitate to pursue them.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I commend the efforts of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) to sort out the appalling situation involving Chester Street.
May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to a recent letter from a constituent? She is a widow living alone, whose husband died in 1997 from an asbestos-related disease. Her claim has still not been dealt with. Will the Secretary of State ensure to the best of her ability that any necessary inquiry or investigation will not delay or stand in the way of those who have suffered and should be receiving compensation?

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Lady is right. We all have a great desire to find out what happened in relation to Chester Street and who was responsible for it happening, but we must have a twin-track approach. We must not only find out what happened, but protect the sufferers.
I am very concerned that the provisional liquidator has been able to find only 5p in the pound to meet the claims; I find that very disturbing. I am also concerned about people whose cases relate to before 1972 because they are not covered by any of the existing schemes. We are working hard across government to find routes to assist those people. It is not an easy matter. I have spoken to senior people in the insurance industry, too. They are as appalled as we are at what has happened. We will not rest until we find a way forward. It will not be easy, but the hon. Lady has my commitment that we will do everything possible to help her constituent and others who are affected.

John Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on his excellent work following the Chester Street collapse. My hon. Friends the Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and I were impressed by his speech at the rally on Saturday. He did an excellent job for the people. Sufferers in Anniesland would like to thank him personally for that. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the insurance industry meets its responsibilities in respect of pre-1972 claimants?

Mrs. Liddell: Some of the issues involved relate to whether individuals are covered by any other insurance company. Where an individual was with an employer who was insured only through Chester Street, there is a significant difficulty. If, however, the individual's employer was insured with another company as well as Chester Street, the other company will meet the liability.
I know my hon. Friend's constituency. Many of his constituents will have worked for British Shipbuilders. That company will acknowledge all liability in relation to victims of asbestosis, but all of us recognise that not everyone is covered. We must find out the full information and find the best way in which to help them.

Oral Answers to Questions — Scotland Act

Mr. Michael Fallon: What representations she has received from the First Minister concerning borrowings under section 66 of the Scotland Act 1998. [155171]

The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes):: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no representations from the First Minister concerning borrowings under section 66 of the Scotland Act 1998.

Mr. Fallon: If the rest of the public sector in Scotland were to follow the example of teachers in receiving higher pay awards than their counterparts in England, beyond the tolerance of the Barnett formula, would the Minister expect that difference to be financed by the use of tax-raising powers before any recourse to borrowing?

Mr. Foulkes: The question is a pretence because it is nothing to do with section 66, which relates to meeting a temporary excess of sums paid out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund or providing a working balance for the fund, and which is repaid. A lot of nonsense is spoken about teachers' salaries north and south of the border, not least by the hon. Gentleman. Let me give some facts. New Scottish teachers appointed at the beginning of the 2001–02 school year will start at a salary of £16,005. Newly qualified teachers in England and Wales start at £17,001. Experienced teachers in Scotland at the top of the main scale will be paid £25,644 from April 2001 and in England and Wales the sum will be £24,965. There is a different structure. There are swings and roundabouts. The hon. Gentleman has never been in favour of devolution. He is now trying to undermine it. He will not succeed.

Mr. David Marshall: Does the Minister agree that the Barnett formula is a transparent, fair and stable way of financing Scotland that has served both the United Kingdom and Scotland well for almost three decades? Does he further agree that those who seek its scrapping do so not in the best interests of Scotland, but in the hope of stirring up trouble between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive? Will he therefore confirm that the Government have no plans to scrap the Barnett formula?

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I could not have said it better myself. The Barnett formula is transparent, fair and stable. It allows the Scottish Parliament to decide its own priorities within a finite budget. That is the important thing. Opposition Members in different parties are mischievous and are working together in a common cause to try to undermine devolution. As I have said, they will not succeed. The Barnett formula is working successfully and we have no plans to change it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADVOCATE-GENERAL

The Advocate-General was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Devolution Issues

Mr. Eric Joyce: If she will make a statement on her role in devolution issue cases to be heard before the Privy Council. [155194]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): My role in cases in which I intervene is to present arguments from the perspective of the United Kingdom Government. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the highest domestic court for devolution issue cases. Such cases may raise issues involving human rights, European law or legal aspects of the devolution settlement under the Scotland Act 1998 that are of importance to the whole United Kingdom.

Mr. Joyce: I am often asked by my constituents as I go round my constituency whether it is necessary for the Advocate-General to appear before the Privy Council, and, if so, whether that takes up much of her time. What should I tell them?

The Advocate-General: I am delighted that my hon. Friend's constituents take such an interest in my interventions. Personal appearance by the Advocate-General in cases in the Privy Council is not a legal requirement under the 1998 Act, but it is certainly useful, and, I hope, helpful to the court, to have a responsible Law Officer available to present legal arguments in that new and developing sphere of law. It does take a lot of time. As some of my hon. Friends will know, a great deal of preparation time is required for legal research, and there are both conferences and days in court. I have therefore limited my personal appearances to cases that are more complex or involve interesting or novel points. However, if any of my hon. Friend's constituents wish to speak to me personally about the matter, I would be delighted to do so.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Could the hon. and learned Lady give the House some indication of the annual cost to the taxpayer of investigating and resolving devolution issues both in the Privy Council and in other places?

The Advocate-General: The cost of the Advocate-General's appearances are subsumed in the general budget, and we have not done a case-by-case analysis. However, I assure the hon. Lady that it is probably cheaper to have me appearing as Advocate-General than it would be to instruct me as counsel.

Oral Answers to Questions — Legal Aid

Mr. Desmond Browne: If she will make a statement about the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 for fixed fees in legal aid. [155195]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): My hon. Friend may be aware that a case on the subject of legal aid is due to be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on 25 and 26 April. The case concerns fixed payment levels under the criminal legal aid regulations in Scotland, and it is argued that such a system is incompatible with article 6 on the right to a fair trial. I have intervened in the case so far to make written submissions to the Judicial Committee.

Mr. Browne: As my hon. and learned Friend will be aware, in the longer term, it is intended to address issues of exceptional cases in legal aid by the mechanism of regulations made under the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Bill which is currently before the Scottish Parliament. As she invariable ends up arguing the difficult cases before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, what discussions have there been between her as Advocate-General and the Scottish Executive on the shape of those regulations?

The Advocate-General: The merits of the case to which I have just referred have still to be determined. However, on the general issue raised by my hon. Friend, I am pleased to say that there is a great deal of discussion on policy matters of common interest between policy officials and Ministers in United Kingdom Departments and those in Scotland. As Advocate-General, I have also encouraged my lawyers to have discussions on relevant legal issues as soon as possible to try to sort out any specific difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — European Convention on Human Rights

Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent advice she has given on the implications of the European convention on human rights; and if she will make a statement. [155196]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): When requested, I give advice as a UK Law Officer on various matters, which include issues related which include issues related to the human rights convention.

Miss McIntosh: The hon. and learned Lady will recall the advice that she gave on a recent road traffic case involving the right to remain silent under the Human Rights Act 1998. Does she share my concern that whereas road traffic cases were previously dealt with uniformly under Scots and English law, there may now be a difference of interpretation across the border?

The Advocate-General: I appreciate the hon. Lady's interest in the matter, but I am not sure that I agree with her. The whole point of taking a matter to the Privy Council is to have it determined by the highest court. Regard will be given to the Privy Council's rulings in English courts as well as those in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — Devolution Issues

Mr. John McFall: In what proportion of the devolution issue cases referred to her she has intervened to date. [155197]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Of the 1,237 devolution issues cases intimated up to 22 March of this year, I have intervened in 19, or approximately 1.5 per cent. Many cases involving devolution issues raise similar points and are dealt with satisfactorily by the lower courts. Generally, I intervene at appeal or Privy Council level where the case raises important issues for the UK as a whole. I examine every devolution issue intimated to me before determining whether or not to intervene.

Mr. McFall: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that illustrates that the relationship between the Scottish Executive and Westminster is working, and that it confounds the critics of all parties who are sceptical and do not want the arrangement to work? Does she also agree that their criticism has been thrown back in their faces, and that the relationship is healthy, vibrant and dynamic?

The Advocate-General: I am pleased to confirm that there is a high level of discussion and co-operation in the legal offices, as there is across the board, in relation to policy matters. The devolution settlement is working, and I hope that I will be able to play a small part in helping it to continue to work.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Guardians Ad Litem

Dr. Vincent Cable: If she will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's proposals for reforming the funding of the courts' guardians ad litem. [155198]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): We plan to increase the funding for self-employed guardians' fees by 3.8 per cent. this year. We have proposed new contracts incorporating graduated fees to distribute this increased funding in a way that preserves self-employed status for those guardians who want it.

Dr. Cable: The profession of guardian is a very important one and it is crucial for some of the most vulnerable people in society—the 10,000 children who appear in court during care and adoption proceedings. Is the Minister aware that the profession is incensed at the way in which the Department's accountants, prompted by the Inland Revenue, have introduced a fixed-fee system that is completely insensitive to the necessity that guardians adapt their work to the needs of the individual case? Will she agree to retract the proposal and consult the profession, whose members have not yet been consulted? Will she introduce a more effective scheme to protect both children and members of the profession?

Jane Kennedy: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of the current circumstances. The new Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service has offered a six-week delay to allow for further consultation. It has offered enhanced graduated fees in the most difficult cases, as well as an independent review both


of the banding criteria and of the quality of service delivered to children after six and 12 months under the new system.
I do not accept that the only way, in the interests of children, to remunerate guardians is according to an hourly rate, which is the case advanced by the guardians. I do not accept either that the quality of services delivered necessarily increases with the number of hours worked. Time spent and quality delivered are not the same thing. Fair graduated fees will co-exist with quality standards. I am confident that, when they have had time to consider the proposals further, the guardians will see that they are fair.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: One hazard with what my hon. Friend has just said is that the guardians are absolutely essential, and are self-employed. They are very worried about the proposed scheme, which was supposed to have been introduced at the beginning of this month. Does my hon. Friend accept that it is essential that the Department reconsider the proposals carefully, as it would be bizarre to lose the services of a great many skilled people who are desperately needed just because of a rather absurd decision that cannot be defended by reference to any consultation?

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is mistaken. In fact, 111 of the guardians are not self-employed, but are employed directly by the panel. We inherited 57 different rates and allowances applicable to self-employed guardians, and that was one of the key problems identified by the Inland Revenue. The ways in which those rates and allowances apply in the guardian service are incompatible with self-employed tax status. The Department brought forward the proposals for a graduated fee structure to ensure the continued availability of self-employment as an employment status. It is a fair structure, and there is no diminution of the funding available for these services. I am confident that once the guardians have seen the details of the proposals they will accept what is on offer.

Oral Answers to Questions — Family Graduated Fees Scheme

Sandra Gidley: If he will make a statement on the family graduated fees scheme. [155199]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The family graduated fees scheme and the rates to be paid have now been settled. The scheme will pay barristers set fees for different functions within a case, which will vary according to the category of family work. The fees can be increased to reflect complexity.
The regulations to bring the scheme into force were laid before Parliament on 20 March. The scheme will be implemented from 1 May.

Sandra Gidley: I welcome the changes and improvements to the original scheme, but family law barristers still have concerns about the current scheme. First, they are paid on a different basis from solicitors—who are still paid hourly—and wish to see an integrated scheme. Secondly, there is real concern that the longer, more complex cases will not be adequately rewarded and that those arguably most in need will not receive the representation that they deserve. I share the concern that

those most in need will not receive representation. Will the Minister undertake to review the scheme in 18 months' time to see how it is working and to ensure that there has been no reduction in the services available to those most in need?

Mr. Lock: I agree in principle that counsel and solicitors should be paid the same rate for the same type of work. However, solicitor-advocates may not always play the same role as banisters in family work, and that needs to be considered. We want to achieve a level playing field. We are confident that the rates we have set are more than adequate and appropriate for the job. We are confident that there is a proper supply of well-qualified barristers to do the work that the hon. Lady has identified, and we will, of course, keep the matter under review.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: What mechanism is the Minister putting in place to ensure that, following this part of the reform of the funding of the legal system, there is an audit comparing past and current provision of proper access to justice for all, as it is suggested that, as a result of the changes, some of the poorest in our society will be denied access to justice?

Mr. Lock: I find that quite astonishing. I have just been able to announce that legal help is now available for a further 5 million people as a result of the reforms and controls that this Government have introduced. That contrasts sharply with the way in which legal aid expenditure was treated under the previous Government. They cut millions of people out of receiving legal aid, instantly denying them access to justice.

Oral Answers to Questions — Lay Magistracy

Mr. Michael Fabricant: What her policy is on maintaining the lay magistracy.[155200]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) on 6 March 2001, Official Report, column 210W.

Mr. Fabricant: Hardly. After all the closures of magistrates courts that we have witnessed up and down the land, including my own—which had lasted for 600 years until this Government came into power—what assurance can the Minister give lay magistrates that they will not be replaced by stipendiary magistrates?

Jane Kennedy: I simply offer the same assurance that I have given on many occasions in the House. The Government recognise the valuable role and service that the lay magistracy offers to society. Their civic responsibilities are very wide. We admire the work that they do and we are confident that they will continue to do that work long after the hon. Gentleman has retired.

Mr. David Taylor: As a member of the Magistrates Association, I am delighted to hear the Minister again spell out her robust support for the lay magistracy. Nevertheless, there remain concerns which I hope she will be able to lay to rest about the


delays in the publication of the Auld report. Are those delays linked to the views of the Home Office, which is thought to be less charitable and positive about the lay magistracy? It is thought that the Home Office may have a secret agenda to do what the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) has articulated.

Jane Kennedy: I would seek to reassure my hon. Friend by saying that Lord Justice Auld is currently drafting his final report, which will be published as soon as it is available. It would be premature to comment on the review before it has been completed, but Lord Justice Auld published a resumé of his early findings last year in which he foresaw a continuing role for the lay magistracy.

Mr. John Burnett: As a result of court closures in Devon and Cornwall, there have unfortunately been a number of resignations from the lay magistracy. I hope that the Minister agrees that we need a representative lay magistracy. It is much to be regretted that a young mother in my constituency has had to resign as a lay magistrate because she is unable to afford three hours per day travelling to the court in Plymouth. Are any steps being taken by the Government to assist magistrates, witnesses and other court users to get to the large city courts, now that the Government have closed so many magistrates courts in our local rural towns?

Jane Kennedy: There are more than 30,000 magistrates across England and Wales. I am sorry to hear of the resignation of the lady whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned, as it is always to be regretted when a magistrate feels that they cannot continue their service. However, the recruitment of lay magistrates is a matter for the local lay magistrates to determine and they review their recruitment requirements regularly. Clearly they will follow carefully the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made and I will look into the case that he has mentioned.

Mr. Simon Thomas: Following the closure of two magistrates courts in my area, lay magistrates have told me of the difficulty that they will have travelling one hour to court and one hour from court. Will the Minister make an assessment of the Government's policies on maintaining the lay magistracy? Will she review the assessment of those policies if they can be demonstrated to have an adverse effect on the reach, accountability and scope of magistrates?

Jane Kennedy: Obviously I will give that undertaking and I will continue to keep the recruitment and retention of magistrates under review. I was pleased to see the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues at our meeting on 19 March to discuss the local proposals that the magistrates courts committee is considering. All representations have been carefully noted and the committee locally will continue to consider responses to the consultation exercise as it proceeds. The committee will be responsible for maintaining recruitment and retention of benches locally.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Having heard today of the closure of courts in the west country, in Staffordshire—from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—and in Wales, does the

Minister recognise that although she comes to the Dispatch Box month after month, smiling sweetly and talking fine words about keeping the magistrates going, there is friendly fire from her hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor), who has mentioned the Home Office's not very well hidden agenda to undermine the lay magistracy? Are not the Government imposing huge costs—as we warned—as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998? The Act states that prisoners cannot be seen handcuffed because that is somehow inhumane and somehow equates to torture. Is not that undermining magistrates courts and causing them to close? The Minister's fine words are incapable of being believed.

Jane Kennedy: My fine words and sweet smile, as the hon. Gentleman describes them, contrast with the fine rant that he brings to the Chamber. The Government's policy is that the magistrates courts are best managed locally by the magistrates courts committee under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.

Oral Answers to Questions — County Courts

Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the planned closure of county courts in England. [155201]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The court service operates 220 county courts at present. We anticipate that the consultation process as a result of the managing the civil courts programme will result in a substantial increase in the number of locations at which county courts can serve their local communities.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply and I am encouraged by its the content. Can he assure the House that in assessing responses to the consultation paper on modernising the civil courts, he will make it clear that the local delivery of justice and not cost will be the overriding objective?

Mr. Lock: I have just explained that we are planning to deliver county court services in an increased number of locations. The hon. Gentleman must understand that, on the principle of full cost recovery, it is the court users who pay for the cost of running the system. It would not be fair to those users to operate courts in locations where there is not sufficient demand. We will take every care to meet local demand as we expand the number of hearing centres where county courts are able to sit, but finance will have to be a consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

The President of the Council was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — University Visitor Jurisdiction

Mr. John Bercow: If she will make a statement on her role in respect of the jurisdiction of visitor in respect of certain universities. [155215]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I act, on the Queen's behalf, as visitor of 17 universities and colleges. I receive petitions mainly from students and former students with complaints or grievances who have exhausted the institutions' complaint or appeal procedures.

Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Lady says that she has responsibility for inspection, regulation and dispute settlement in respect of no fewer than 17 universities, which thankfully is five more than come under the aegis of the accident-prone Lord Chancellor. How many has she visited, how many have sought her agreement to changes in their constitutions and how many disputes has she been asked to settle? In respect of that last question, where conciliation is required, may I offer a helping hand?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman off hand how many of the institutions I have visited. I doubt whether it is all that many. I cannot tell him from memory how many have sought changes to their constitutions, as there are frequent changes, but I can certainly write to him about that.
Last year, we dealt with 21 disputes. So far this year, there have been about a dozen.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his offer of mediation. I strongly support alternative dispute resolution methods. We are authorising cases under the pilot mediation scheme and are hopeful that some students will take that course rather than going straight to the formality of the present procedures.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

The President of the Council was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Parliamentary Data and Video Network

Mr. Michael Fabricant: If she will bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to improve hon. Members' access to the PDVN system. [155217]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons is indeed keeping the use of information technology by hon. Members under review. The Information Committee also has an important role in that respect.

Mr. Fabricant: Does the Minister accept that it is important in the 21st century for Members of Parliament to be able to access their e-mails and the internet not only within the Parliamentary Estate but remotely, from their homes and constituencies? I congratulate members of the Parliamentary Communications Directorate on the work that they do, but does the Minister accept that people trying to access the House of Commons facilities remotely are finding it difficult because of the limits of the technical resources that are available? Many people feel

that that is because of a restricted budget. What can the hon. Gentleman do to ensure that we have a 21st-century internet and e-mail system for a 21st-century Parliament?

Mr. Tipping: I agree that the employees of the Parliamentary Communications Directorate work hard and do an excellent job. I also agree that it is important that all Members of Parliament, whether at Westminster, at home or in their constituency, should have equality of access, which is not the case at present. Budget is an issue, but so is change management. I hope that steps will be taken in the not too distant future to make changes that will be for the benefit of all hon. Members and, more particularly, their constituents.

Mr. Andrew Miller: May I, on this rare occasion, endorse the words of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—especially in relation to the staff of PCD, who do a tremendous job? My hon. Friend will be aware that many of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman may be addressed if the House adopts the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body report. Will he put on his other hat, and find time for an urgent debate on that before Easter?

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend is quite right that the SSRB report makes very interesting reading. It puts great weight on the consideration of information technology. I will put on my other hat and remind my hon. Friend that this matter is for the House to decide, but I also point out that there are a great many demands on time in the House. I am conscious of the fact that the issue is real and pressing; I note what he says.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman has surely noticed that the programme to which we were working—with a general election to be held on 3 May—has changed. We have a whole extra month to fill up, so the excuse that we could not find enough time to deal with the SSRB report has disappeared. Will the hon. Gentleman please agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) that we now have time? When are we going to get this done?

Mr. Tipping: I am grateful for the interest that the hon. Gentleman takes in such matters. He has pursued the issue hard both in the Chamber and outside. I do not dispute the need for change.
I know nothing about timetables for general elections—3 May or any other date—but I know that a great deal of business has to come before the House. This is one issue; I hope that we shall be able to address it in the not too distant future.

Oral Answers to Questions — Parliamentary Reform

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What further proposals she plans to bring before the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on parliamentary reform; and if she will make a statement. [155218]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Committee has initiated several important experiments in the way the House works—Westminster Hall sittings, the hours of Thursday sittings, programming and deferred voting. The Committee will look at other matters such as the use of IT, but the priority must be to keep those experiments under review.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am pleased that we are to look at other matters. May I invite the Leader of the House—albeit out of season—to consider the long summer parliamentary recess during which there is no scrutiny and no accountability by this place? Often, disasters occur which would normally mean statements at the Dispatch Box. We commit our armed forces to combat situations about which there would normally be statements at the Dispatch Box. There is summitry about which there would normally also be statements at the Dispatch Box. After each summer recess, may we have a written report from each Minister of his or her stewardship during the closed period and a statement from the Prime Minister, when Parliament reconvenes, about what has passed during those long summer weeks of recess?

Mrs. Beckett: With respect to my hon. Friend, we do not commit our armed forces every, summer recess, although I appreciate that it has happened occasionally. My hon. Friend makes a serious point. The Government take steps to keep the House and the country informed. As to the precise mechanism that my hon. Friend suggests for so doing, I do not undertake to agree to it, but I certainly undertake to give it consideration.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the right hon. Lady find an opportunity for the House to review the trial arrangements for programme motions in the Chamber and in Committee? She will be aware that her Committee published a new report on the issue yesterday. I think that she will acknowledge that the report owes its genesis to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) who, during this Parliament and previous Parliaments, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, has been anxious to improve the way in which the House scrutinises legislation. It was very much on his initiative that the new report was produced.
The right hon. Lady is also aware that there is cross-party agreement on that admirably brief— one-page—report, although the Committee was not unanimous. As the unexpected weeks available for good business in the House give us an opportunity to do so, can the House itself now debate the issue, to ensure that, if and when there is an election, the new Standing or Sessional Orders in the new Parliament can take account of the Committee's advice?

Mrs. Beckett: Certainly, I recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. He is entirely right that the recent, brief report received cross-party support. One might almost say all-party support, although he is right, too, to point out that the report was not unanimous. He is also right to pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) who, down the years, has certainly made a substantial contribution to the House—not least, perhaps, during these past days in making the report.
I have noticed that during the past couple of days a whole raft of issues has been raised for which it is confidently predicted that it will be easy for the Government to find time. As ever, I shall give what favourable consideration I can to those matters, but the purpose of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers was indeed to encourage reconsideration of the trial. The need for new Sessional Orders will in any case make that necessary.

Mr. David Winnick: May I suggest one parliamentary reform, namely to try to stop the practice whereby, from time to time, a Government Whip comes marching in with a stick? At one time he would have walked backwards. Is it really necessary? I have written to my right hon. Friend on the subject. Does she not agree that just as Black Rod no longer interrupts our proceedings when it is necessary to state that an Act has become law, messages from Her Majesty could be read out by the Speaker? Why on earth do we have this pantomime performance in the 21st century? Wakey, wakey!

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that he has written to me on the matter, and I am compelled to tell him that it is more a matter for the Procedure Committee than for me. I understand his point, but he will know that there are different views on the matter throughout the House.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Mercifully, there will probably be only one more meeting of the ghastly Modernisation Committee before the general election. Following the right hon. Lady's comments, I should perhaps put it on record that although the report published yesterday had the support of two of my colleagues, it certainly does not have the support of the official Opposition.
Returning to the question asked by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), has the right hon. Lady considered the inappropriateness of a Cabinet Minister, and the Leader of the House at that, chairing a Committee that changes and proposes amendments to the Standing Orders of the House which affect Back Benchers on both sides of the House? In her reflections on the so-called wonderful experiment that we have had to endure for the past four years, has she considered giving the chairmanship to a representative from the Back Benches rather than herself?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady is her usual gracious self. She is right to place on record the fact that the report to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred did not attract the support of the official Opposition, but it is also right to place on record the fact that it did attract the support of two of the most senior and experienced Conservative Members. With regard to the hon. Lady's remarks about inappropriateness, she will know that it was this party's manifesto proposal that there should be a Select Committee on modernisation of the House and that it should be chaired by the Leader of the House. As I have pointed out to her before, it is not unprecedented for a Select Committee to be so chaired. [Interruption.]
In light of the comment made by the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, I shall make only one other enlightening remark on the subject. I have never before thought it


necessary or desirable to do what I am about to do, and I am not sure that it is the right thing to do now, but in view of the words of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I should perhaps tell the House of a resolution carried at the end of the Committee's deliberations last week. I accept that the hon. Lady had left the room at that point—perhaps she would have tried to prevent the resolution being carried. The Committee resolved:
That the Committee pay tribute to the Chairman for the exemplary manner in which she has presided over the Committee's deliberations.
I fear that that was moved by a Conservative Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — Deferred Divisions

Mrs. Betty Williams: What assessment she has made of the experiment with deferred Divisions; and when it will be reviewed. [155219]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Deferred Divisions appear to be working well in allowing debate after the moment of interruption without forcing the majority of the House to remain until late into the night to deal with matters of minority interest. There had been 33 deferred Divisions as at 28 March, which is a potential eight and a quarter hours of voting time; in only eight were more than 100 votes recorded in the No Lobby, and in 21, fewer than 20 Members voted in the No Lobby.

Mrs. Williams: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the system will continue in the next Session? Does he agree that the official Opposition do not want serious debate in the Chamber and are intent only on wasting time?

Mr. Tipping: What I can confirm is that the system is an experiment, and it is a matter for the House to decide. I can say candidly to my hon. Friend that I support it. It saves time and is in the best interests of the House. Of course, there is an argument that if some Opposition Members—I stress the word "some"—had not been keen to devote so much time to certain subjects of so little interest, it might not have been necessary for the House collectively to assert its right to protect itself.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) meant to refer to the next Parliament, rather than the next Session of Parliament, when she asked her supplementary question.
Will the Minister not accept that deferred Divisions may well undermine and negate the influence of Back-Bench opinion on both sides of the House because the influence of Beck Benchers' speeches will have been forgotten by the time the Divisions take place, and that good government results from Back-Bench opinion on both sides of the House being properly expressed?

Mr. Tipping: Of course good government depends on exchanging ideas and opinions, and I have spent many happy hours late at night in the Chamber, listening to the debates. Those Members who wish to take part in the debate can, and they frequently do so at length, but I do not think that deferred Divisions have changed the weight of opinion or the importance of Back-Bench opinion.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), answered Question 30 by referring me to a previous answer, given some time ago. It may not have been out of order, but do you think it proper that she should do that in answer to an oral question, without at least informing me that she was going to do so, thus preventing me from looking up the answer to which she referred?

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I have no responsibility for the content of ministerial answers. None the less, it is helpful to the free flow of Question Time if an answer is readily understandable by all Members seeking to take part in the exchanges. I will look into the issue raised and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter that I raised with you on a point of order yesterday—my inability to find out from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the circumstances in which a landfill site in my constituency was to be used to bury carcases. It is now some five days since I wrote to the Minister asking him to tell me what was going on. I have tried writing to him, e-mailing him and sending him post in the normal way. Even though you have never been contaminated by service in government, can you give Back Benchers some guidance on what to do when Ministers simply will not answer letters?

Mr. Speaker: Like the hon. Gentleman, I used to be a Back Bencher, and all I can say is that he must keep pestering the Minister.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is grave anxiety in my constituency about the proposals on whether to vaccinate. Have you had any indication from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—or, indeed, from the Prime Minister—on whether they intend to make a statement, given that we were told before last weekend that the Government would take a decision on that very serious issue in the next few days? We have reached that

point; my constituents are waiting; and there is deep anxiety about the uncertainty and lack of clarity on this difficult issue.

Mr. Speaker: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's problem, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any notice of a Minister in the Department of Health coming to the House to give Members information on food safety? You will remember that the previous Government were criticised in the reports on BSE for dealing with food safety in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, so food safety was transferred to the Department of Health, which now deals with it; yet in all this crisis, not a single Health Minister has made a statement on food safety issues—which, of course, affect everyone—if only to reassure hon. Members that there is no such problem with foot and mouth.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that Health Ministers will take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you been asked whether a statement could be made by one of the Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the grant of £1.2 billion to Railtrack? The company has immediately said that it is not enough, but the House of Commons should at least have some idea of what is being proposed.

Mr. Speaker: No application to make a statement has been received.

BILL PRESENTED

ELECTIONS

Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Secretary Reid and Mr. Mike O'Brien, presented a Bill to postpone local elections in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, to require polls for different elections in Northern Ireland to be taken together if they are to be taken on the same day, and to make consequential provision: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 80].

Graffiti (Control)

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale of spray paint to minors; to authorise local authorities to require people subject to community service orders to undertake the removal of graffiti; and for connected purposes.
This Bill follows a debate that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) a year ago, when he was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). There is tremendous concern about the amount of graffiti in our constituencies; the problem is causing great distress. Graffiti is a form of vandalism to public and private property and it gives the streets an air of desolation and threat, which is frightening, in particular, to the older people who frequently write to us about the problem. The younger people who perpetrate the crime endanger themselves on many occasions by going into railway stations and on to live railway lines in the middle of the night. People have been seriously injured as a result.
Some people argue that graffiti is an art form, and I would accept that some graffiti is. I am well aware that people carry out university dissertations on the subject and, in secret parts of my constituency that only young people can reach, there are some brilliant examples of graffiti art. They are much admired and even photographed.
Most graffiti, however, is just a messy scribble that bears as much relation to art—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May we have some order in the Chamber? The hon. Lady is entitled to speak to her motion.

Dr. Tonge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The sort of graffiti that I have described bears as much relation to art as a sheep pickled in formaldehyde. There are scribbles all over our cities—likewise the so-called tags. Tags are the signatures of graffiti artists who go round their neighbourhoods marking out their property rather in the way that dogs pee against lamp-posts. It is a disgusting habit.
In Richmond upon Thames alone, £150,000 was spent in the past year on trying to remove graffiti, but we all know that it is a losing battle. London local authorities combined have spent £10 million in the past year removing graffiti from public places and many private homes—and what a waste of public money that is. How many better classrooms, how many teachers and how much care for the elderly could £10 million provide?
Some 20 per cent. of criminal damage against property each year is graffiti damage, and 900,000 offences in 1999 in the London area were graffiti offences. An officer working in my borough, Inspector Mark Jones, does undercover work to try to catch graffiti artists, and there has been a lot of success recently. Two weeks ago, six graffiti artists were caught red handed—although I do not know what colour the paint was. Inspector Jones has told me that the police would like greater powers to apprehend and search the young people involved. The police know

perfectly well where they are going and what they are going to do, but young people just walk away laughing because they know that the police have no powers.
Community service orders in Richmond upon Thames require graffiti merchants to clean graffiti off walls and buildings. That is an eminently sensible punishment. The problems of the health and safety regulations which used to stand in the way have been overcome. The Bill requires people who are subject to community service orders for graffiti offences to undertake the removal of graffiti in their area. The punishment must fit the crime. However, the whole process is a waste of money for local authorities that are strapped for cash, and a waste of police time for a police force short on personnel. We are attempting to stop the problem at source and have pressed the Government for some time by calling for a ban on the sale of spray paints to minors.
In response to parliamentary questions, the Government insist:
There are no plans at present to restrict the sale of spray paints to juveniles; this would penalise young people who have a legitimate reason for their purchase."—[Official Report, 16 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 206W.]
What legitimate reason might a young person of 15 or 16 have? If he requires spray paint for art at school, surely that can be purchased with a note from the lecturer or teacher, or his parents can get it. Would it limit young people's freedom so much if they were unable to buy it? Supermarkets and do-it-yourself outlets in my area sell spray paint and I have been told that it is sometimes possible to buy five or six cans for a pound. That is ridiculous. In addition, spray paint does not have to be bought: it is easily stolen. It is often on low shelves and can be scooped into a rucksack before the young person goes off on that night's activities.
The Government also refer to the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 which makes it an offence to sell a substance to a minor knowing that it or its fumes are likely to be inhaled for intoxication. There is evidence that the fumes of spray paint are intoxicating and that young people get a high from them. Why are there no prosecutions under the 1985 Act? Why are there no test cases? We never hear of anyone being taken to court for selling those substances to young people. Preventing or trying to prevent the sale of spray paint to minors is a practical step that we can take.
I implore the Government to take our Bill seriously so that we try to stop the vandalism and waste of public funds that are expended on it. I urge them to support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Jenny Tonge, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Edward Davey, Mr. Paul Burstow and Mr. Tom Brake.

GRAFFITI (CONTROL)

Dr. Jenny Tonge accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of spray paint to minors; to authorise local authorities to require people subject to community service orders to undertake the removal of graffiti; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 July, and to be printed [Bill 81].

Business of the House

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We will shortly debate a motion tabled by the Leader of the House on the business of the House, but before we can sensibly do that we need to have an idea of the terms of the timetable motion. I have just been to the Vote Office. It does not yet have the timetable motion, so we do not know its terms. That is a peculiar state of affairs, not least because the Leader of the House announced the timetable motion yesterday. May I suggest that it would be best for us to adjourn our debate until the timetable motion is in the Vote Office?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a copy of the Elections Bill, which has just been delivered an hour late to the Vote Office. The opening paragraph relates to explanatory notes, which will be prepared by the Home Office and published "as Bill 80—EN." We have been to the Vote Office, and although we shall debate the Bill shortly, no explanatory notes are available. [HON. MEMBERS: "We'll discuss it tomorrow."] Hold on; I believe that, since the Bill has been published today, it is important to publish the explanatory notes, too. Could you advise the House on that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill was presented only today. The explanatory notes are a matter for the Minister, not the Chai.

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on what appears to be a growing phenomenon of parliamentary truancy whereby hon. Members—I am sorry to say that, they are principally Labour Members—bunk off rather than turn up to ask the questions that they have tabled. Given that that is discourteous to the House, I ask you, in the words of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, with which I am sure you are familiar—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a proper point of order. I am here, and so is the hon. Gentleman. That is all he has to worry about.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move,
That, in respect of the Elections Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
The motion simply provides for amendments to be tabled in advance of Second Reading. The Bill needs to receive Royal Assent quickly: certainly before the Easter recess. We believe that all those involved in local elections—candidates, parties and electoral administrators—need certainty. Local authorities are obliged to incur wasted expenditure in anticipation of elections on 3 May, for example, through printing ballot papers and sending out postal vote papers, until the Bill receives Royal Assent. I therefore propose that all its stages be taken tomorrow.

To be helpful to the Opposition and, indeed, all hon. Members, we propose that hon. Members can table amendments straight away rather than having to wait till the end of Second Reading.
We made draft copies of the Bill available to principal Opposition spokespeople yesterday evening to give them extra time to consider its provisions. I hope that hon. Members will perceive the motion as a common-sense measure and endorse it.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As the Minister knows, I have raised a point of order on the explanatory notes. Does he not accept that they would be helpful to hon. Members? Can he suggest when they will be available? If amendments are to be tabled before Second Reading, the explanatory notes would be helpful, especially to Back-Bench Members, who do not have the advantage of large offices to advise them. They help hon. Members to determine the sort of amendments they may table.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that hon. Members will benefit from explanatory notes. I assure him that we will provide them as soon as possible. The motion that we are considering covers only the procedural question of whether amendments can be tabled in advance of Second Reading.

Mr. Hogg: The Minister has heard my point of order on the timetable motion. If he was in a position to disclose a draft copy of the Bill to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, why was not he in a position to place a timetable motion in the Table Office? When can we expect it to be there?

Mr. Clarke: I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the same commitment as I gave to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I shall use best endeavours to ensure that we make it available as quickly as possible.
I hope that I have clarified the motion.

Mrs. Angela Browning: rose—

Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to catch the Minister's eye earlier to query whether he had said that the main Opposition parties had been given copies of the Bill yesterday evening. One has to bear in mind that there are other Opposition parties too. I wonder whether the Northern Ireland parties had a copy of the Bill yesterday evening, because I was not aware of it, and the Bill specifically affects Northern Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the Minister will take note of that point of order, because I would expect all Opposition parties to be given notice.

Mrs. Browning: rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A promise was made yesterday that we would receive a draft copy, because most of the Bill has to do with Northern Ireland. That promise was not kept: my party did not get a copy until this morning,


after hunting round the various Whips' offices and making phone calls. We did not get our copy until just before the House sat this afternoon. Northern Ireland parties are implicated in the legislation in a big way, so surely they were entitled to see the Bill as soon as possible.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for me to apologise to hon. Gentlemen from the Northern Ireland parties? I do not know why what happened did happen, and I apologise. As both the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) have said, the Bill very much affects their part of this country; they were entitled to see it, and I apologise that they did not have it earlier.

Mrs. Browning: rose—

Mr. Martin Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put the case for the many independents in local Government? Surely they are entitled to as much consideration as the candidates from the regular political parties.

Mrs. Browning: Third time lucky, Mr. Speaker.
Given the representations that we have just heard in the form of points of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could begin by saying something that I was going to ask you about. I collected the Elections Bill from the Vote Office after Question Time at 3.30; it was an hour late and, as we have heard, there are no explanatory notes to go with it at the moment—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady. The Bill was made available as soon as it was presented to the House.

Mrs. Browning: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I said that the Bill was late because earlier in the day I had asked the people in the Vote Office when they had been notified that it would be delivered to them. I was told that it was expected to be there by 2.30. That is why I suggested that it was an hour late.
In the circumstances—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady will take my word for it: I heard the Bill being presented earlier today, and it could be placed in the Vote Office only after it was presented before the House.

Mrs. Browning: Of course I accept your word for that, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Browning: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to complete a sentence first.
I would like to make a helpful suggestion, because clearly we are dealing with matters of great concern to Members in all parts of the House. I appreciate the fact that those on the Conservative Front Bench received a draft copy of the Bill last night, and we are very grateful

for that. None the less, the examination and scrutiny of any Bill is equally a matter for Back Benchers on both sides of the House.
In view of the representations that you have just heard in the form of points of order from other parties whose representatives did not receive a draft copy, Mr. Speaker, are you prepared to advise the House of whether you will accept manuscript amendments until a late stage, just before we begin of our proceedings on the Bill tomorrow afternoon? Many Members will not wish to draft their amendments until they have had sight of the explanatory notes.

Mr. Eric Forth: My hon. Friend will not have forgotten that the Government intend to take all stages of the Bill under a guillotine tomorrow. How does she imagine that the House will be able to judge what will happen in the Committee stage? Hon. Members may wish to table amendments for Report. How does my hon. Friend imagine that they will be able to do that if we are operating under a guillotine?

Mrs. Browning: That is exactly why I began by suggesting—and would have suggested, even if I had not heard the representations from other parties—that you might consider manuscript amendments for tomorrow's proceedings, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend is right: we shall be taking all stages of the Bill under a guillotine. Indeed, the House will not need me to remind it that tomorrow we shall be taking all stages of two Bills under guillotine motions. Careful deliberation will therefore be needed to ensure that we have adequate time, especially for the Committee and Report stages of each Bill. That applies particularly to the Elections Bill, as we have had so little time to consider it.
Having had a few minutes on the Bench in which to flip through the Elections Bill, I immediately see many matters that are not only detailed but potentially controversial. Although there is agreement between the parties on wanting the Bill to proceed, it cannot do so at the expense of proper scrutiny on the Floor of the House, or of the right of people to ask questions and to have the right length of debate.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend advances a coherent and constructive argument. Does she not feel that the Government are wrong to introduce a programme motion for the Bill? We are dealing with local government democracy in the Bill, and it is entirely inappropriate that there should be a programme motion. Bearing in mind the complications in the Bill, if the House needs to sit late tomorrow night, it should have the opportunity to do so and should not be inhibited by any programme or guillotine motion.

Mrs. Browning: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am concerned, because we shall be dealing with two important Bills tomorrow under those terms. During the business statement yesterday, the Leader of the House was asked whether we would sit late tomorrow night. I forget her exact words, but she implied that we would not. That suggests that the guillotining is going to be pretty ruthless.
My hon. Friend asked about the Government's intention to programme. Programming has become the hallmark of this Government. Although there is co-operation, and a need to see the Bill discharged, I none to the less urge the Minister to allow the House—particularly its Back-Bench Members—to give the Bill the proper scrutiny that it deserves.

Mr. Hogg: Is there not a further problem? This is the first time the local government representatives and their associations will have seen the Bill. They may well want to make representations about its contents. In the ordinary course of events, no amendments would be taken after the House rises tonight. In those circumstances, how on earth are those people going to have their point of view properly listened to by the elected representatives sitting in this place?

Mrs. Browning: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. Glancing through the Bill for just a few minutes, I notice, for example, a provision about the extension of the nomination period in relation to individual candidates. There is also the matter of clause 6, which deals with compensation to local authorities or candidates. The House will want to probe exactly what is intended by that, and, in the absence of an explanatory note, I have not been able to second-guess it at this stage.
The programme for tomorrow's business includes two very important Bills. The Elections Bill will require a lot of debate and scrutiny. Mr. Speaker, may I urge you to consider being as flexible as possible, according to the powers available to you, in relation to representations from Back Benchers on both sides of the House, and to the ways in which amendments could be tabled to the Bill? Perhaps you could also give us guidance on how the Report stage will be handled, as we shall not have heard the relevant deliberations by the time any amendments would have to be tabled?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the hon. Lady agree that the most difficult part of the Bill has to do with Northern Ireland? We have two systems of voting there. We have a system involving putting a straight "X" for electing Members to this House, and the "one, two, three" single transferable vote system in local government. That leads to all sorts of complications, because the constituencies for Westminster are not—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. We are not scrutinising the Bill at the moment. We are discussing the business of the House, under motion 3. That motion is very narrow, and deals with the ability to table amendments. We are, therefore, going wide of the motion if we start discussing the detail of the Bill. That will come later.

Mrs. Browning: May I pick up the thrust of the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)? The measures dealing with matters pertaining to Northern Ireland are important and no doubt amendments to them will be tabled, which brings me back to timetabling. How will the allocation of time be dealt with? It is a great pity that a timetable motion is not before the House now, because we would have a clearer idea of how time will be divided up between the various parts of a Bill that we have only just seen.

4 pm

Mr. Eric Forth: The problem is that we have only part of the information. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, we know only the barest details of what confronts us and what is, after all, an extremely important and rare, if not unprecedented, event in our constitutional arrangements. We are discussing nothing less than changing election dates. I should have thought that even this Government would want to ensure that the House has a proper opportunity to consider those matters in detail, yet we do not know how much time they will deign to give us tomorrow.
The Leader of the House was kind enough to say yesterday that an allocation of time motion relating to the Elections Bill and, indeed, another Bill would be tabled. We have been told that two Bills will be considered on the same day.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must be very firm: the right hon. Gentleman is going wide of the motion. I cannot allow him to do so, because I am sure that he will want to speak on other matters.

Mr. Forth: You can take that as being absolutely for sure, Mr. Speaker. I am concentrating on this matter right now; I am warming to my theme.
The Leader of the House told us yesterday that there will be proceedings—plural—on the Elections Bill. Until the motion was tabled, that was the only hint that we will have debates on Second Reading, in Committee, and on Report and Third Reading.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend will want to remind the House that unless the Bill is amended in Committee, there will be no consideration on Report and the process will be further truncated.

Mr. Forth: Regrettably, that is true and my right hon. and learned Friend is correct. I hold out no great hope or optimism that we shall be able to amend the Bill in Committee. It has been in our possession for only a few minutes, but even a glance at it suggests to me that there is ample scope for amendment. Therefore, we should be concerned about the opportunity given to us by the motion properly to amend the Bill.
The motion says that
notices of Amendments, new Clauses"—
that is a useful hint—"and new Schedules", which is an even bigger hint, I would have thought,
to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
That suggests that we shall be able to table amendments, new clauses and new schedules right up to the vote on Second Reading. That in turn suggests that, were we to agree to the motion, which I hope we do not, we would face a possible plethora of manuscript amendments being tabled after Second Reading and before we consider the Bill in a Committee of the whole House. We would then be in the invidious position of facing the possibility of debating a number of manuscript amendments of which most Members of the House were unaware until that point.

Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend contemplate this point? He is discussing manuscript amendments being


tabled up to the point at which we begin consideration on Second Reading, but the truth is that the House needs to consider and reflect on the arguments advanced on Second Reading. That argues for amendments to be tabled in Committee.

Mr. Forth: Of course, my right hon. and learned Friend is correct, although I had not quite reached that point in my reasoning. When considering any Bill, never mind a Bill of such gravity and importance, we would usually expect the opportunity to consider what had been said on Second Reading, take soundings, undertake consultations, accept representations from outside and table amendments in Committee.
That would be the normal process, but we are faced with an absurdity in this instance. Apparently, we are expected to engage in a truncated Second Reading debate under a guillotine; we will vote on Second Reading; then, and only then, the shutters will come down and it will no longer be possible to table amendments.
I might want to delay submitting my amendment until I have heard the whole of the Second Reading debate. If time permitted, I might well want to hear the Minister's winding-up speech before considering what amendments to table for the Committee stage.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend's textual exegesis is second to none, but, in fairness to the Leader of the House, does he not think that she possibly—and presumptuously—intended the word "proceedings" to refer to a single event?

Mr. Forth: I cannot believe that. I think that my hon. Friend, unusually, has got the wrong end of the stick. I assume that the Leader of the House deliberately used the word in the plural because of the devastating combination that would confront us under a guillotine: in quick succession, Second Reading, a Committee of the whole House, Report—if amendments had been made in Committee—and Third Reading.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In the normal run of procedure, when we have a Standing Committee, there is the safeguard of a Programming Sub-Committee. How can the safeguards built into the normal passage of legislation by the good offices of such a Sub-Committee be taken into account when a Bill is being taken through all its stages in one day on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the tabling of amendments, which is what the motion is about.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend may wish to consider what he has said. It might have a bearing in some circumstances—but, guided by you, Mr. Speaker, I could not possibly speculate on that.
It strikes me, at first glance, that items in the Bill mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)—we have had only a few minutes in which to look at it—suggest considerable scope for amendments, which, of course, are allowed by the motion. The controversial issue of a fixed date might be the subject of one debate; a change of circumstances

in the renomination of a candidate might be the subject of another. There is our friend "as if for", which is a variation of the "deeming" method that we have seen recently. There is the whole question of compensation—not easement of expense limits—on which I myself might wish to table an amendment.

Mr. Hogg: In regard to limits on expenses, is it not difficult for us to determine whether it is appropriate to approve the motion until we have had the opportunity of receiving representations from the Local Government Association on whether the 50 per cent. figure is sufficient?

Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend raises an important matter. We are being told that a Bill that we have only just received will go through all its stages tomorrow, and that the motion allows the tabling of amendments, new clauses and new schedules, all of which could well be the subject of serious representations from those directly involved in local elections and local councils up and down the land, whose circumstances will vary. Given the compressed nature of the timetable that is being suggested, I should have thought that the lack of any time for those outside the House to make legitimate representations to Members would seriously undermine the credibility of the Bill, should it be passed.
It is all very well for the Minister to say, "It is all very uncontroversial; it has all been agreed, everyone is happy with it, and therefore we need not bother with it too much, need we?" We know from bitter recent experience—the other Bill that we are to debate tomorrow, which you will not want me to discuss or even refer to, Mr. Speaker, is standing testimony to this— that, if we do not scrutinise legislation adequately, mistakes are likely to arise.

Mr. Hogg: Would my right hon. Friend care to make this point? We cannot judge whether the motion now before the House is appropriate until we know what, if any, representations were made to the Government by the Local Government Association and other bodies when the Bill was originally drafted.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct, but I hazard a guess that the answer is adjacent to zero. That should disturb us all greatly; it should not give us any assurance.

Mrs. Browning: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it might be helpful if when the Minister replied, he could say when authority was given for the drafting of the Bill? [Interruption.]

Mr. Forth: The Minister has just indicated from a sedentary position that he is not going to bother replying to the debate. I think that that was the gist of what he has just muttered. I am beginning to think that this matter will now be subjected to a Division. I am certainly of a mind now to seek to divide the House on it, if only to seek to censure the Minister for the fact that he has indicated that he will not reply to the debate. A debate not replied to should be subjected to a Division, so that we can test the view of the House. I thought that I would give a little indication of that at this stage to help my colleagues.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am trying to be reasonable and rational, because I agree with the Bill. I wonder


whether my right hon. Friend would indicate whether—this specifically relates to the motion —the Clerks at the Table will accept new clauses, new schedules and amendments to be moved in Committee after the Bill has had its Second Reading. Clearly, in the light of what is said on Second Reading, it may be necessary to table amendments. Will they be acceptable in manuscript form?

Mr. Speaker: It might be helpful if I said that the motion simply allows amendments to be tabled before the Bill has been read a Second time. It is about timing. It has no bearing on the scope of amendments that may be proposed.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is helpful guidance and we are grateful for it, but can you tell us whether you would be minded to accept manuscript amendments in Committee, bearing it in mind that, in the ordinary course of events, amendments must be tabled by tonight? It would be enormously helpful to us if you accepted amendments in Committee and, if we have a Report stage, on Report.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we are dealing with a Committee of the whole House. It is for the Chairman of Ways and Means to consider that matter, not me.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible for you this evening, once you have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means, to say what the likely ruling would be? It would be of enormous value to the House to know that amendments could be tabled in Committee.

Mr. Speaker: The Chairman of Ways and Means, like me, cannot deal with hypothetical matters. Obviously, amendments will have to be weighed up by the Chairman of Ways and Means, as they are weighed up by me.

Mr. Forth: That is extremely helpful, Mr. Speaker. We are all grateful for that, but you referred a moment ago to amendments. The motion also talks about new clauses and new schedules. Therefore, potentially, a new schedule could—

Mr. Charles Clarke: rose—

Mr. Forth: I will happily give way to the Minister, who is not going to reply to the debate.

Mr. Clarke: I may have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but I just want to make it clear that, if he divides the House against the motion, amendments, new clauses and new schedules to he moved in Committee might not be accepted by the Clerks before the Bill has been read a Second time. That may be the effect of dividing the House. I want to make sure that he has understood that.

Mr. Forth: I am always grateful for the patronising guidance of the Minister from the depth of his vast parliamentary experience. I always feel completely inadequate when faced by this Minister across the Chamber, and I find his guidance extremely helpful.

I should, however, tell him that I shall make up my own mind on what I do and whether I seek to divide the House, and that when I do, I will probably know what I am up to.

Mr. Hogg: I shall be very chary in the way in which I phrase my intervention. Would I be right in supposing that, had the Government been minded to allow amendments in Committee, the motion could have been drafted in such a manner as to say so?

Mr. Forth: Of course, but it is perfectly obvious that the Government's objective in this whole exercise is to minimise the opportunity for consultation, representation, debate, amendments and consideration. We can draw no other conclusion than that. Although the Minister has tried, rather feebly, to portray the motion as an act of parliamentary generosity by the Government, those of us who have been in this place for more than a dog-watch will know that the situation is precisely the opposite.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: As one who has been in this place for the same length of dog-watch as the Minister, I should perhaps tell my right hon. Friend that, before he takes into account the Minister's guidance on this Bill, on three occasions during our consideration of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, the Minister's guidance on likely events turned out to be terminologically inexact.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is nothing to do with the matter before us.

Mr. Forth: No, but it is interesting.
I should like for a moment to concentrate on the word "schedules", which is rather important to us in this debate. It would be one thing if we were dealing only with amendments—although amendments can be a matter of great seriousness and very wide-ranging, of course subject to selection by you, Mr. Speaker—but when we discuss the possibility, as is stated in the motion, of new schedules to the Bill, that raises the possibility of a wide-ranging debate and of considerable change to the thrust and direction of the Bill itself. No less could be said of new clauses.
Once we get into the territory of new clauses and schedules and the possibility of their being moved were they to be selected, the relationship between Second Reading and Committee, and between Committee and Report, comes into play, as does the matter—which we are not discussing today, although we shall tomorrow—of the time available for them. Therefore, time and again, we keep coming back to the fact that hon. Members must make some type of judgment, within the terms of the motion, on whether we think that it is credible or acceptable, in terms of parliamentary accountability and scrutiny of the Bill, to countenance what is suggested in the motion.
Although it may be possible for all these matters to be
accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time"—
in other words, as I understand it, under the guillotine, right up until a Division, if there is to be one, on conclusion of debate on Second Reading—we face the possibility of a very complex schedule being tabled at the last minute trying to take account of what has been


discussed on Second Reading, and the House being forced under a guillotine either to debate the matter barely at all or to divide on a possibly very complex schedule, although we are scarcely aware of its content. That puts us in an impossible position.
Even if the Government are attempting to say, "Aren't we being generous, having guillotined this Bill and said", as the Leader of the House did, "that we will have all the proceedings under a guillotine in less than one parliamentary day?", hon. Members are now in the invidious position that we—with you, Mr. Speaker—may have to make a very rapid judgment on a complicated manuscript new schedule or new clause and then be forced to make up our minds on that provision on a matter as important as elections.

Mr. Hogg: Although we are discussing procedure, namely the motion on the Order Paper, does my right hon. Friend agree that we are aware of only part of the process? Until we see the timetable, we do not know when, for example, the Bill will be considered on Second Reading. We are seeing but part of the process, not the whole. How can the House conceivably vote successfully on this motion?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I was going to touch on that issue, and now is as good a time as any to do it. We know that we have only just had the Bill and the Government propose that it should be dealt with tomorrow, but we do not know at what stage tomorrow it will be dealt with. It is an important point. My right hon. and learned Friend has highlighted the fact that those of us who will try to balance our time between wanting to participate in the upcoming debate and attempting to rush off and start drafting numerous amendments and new schedules to the Bill—as I fully intend to do—do not know how much time we have available to do that. The motion states simply
before the Bill has been read a second time.
For the sake of argument, let us suppose that a statement were made tomorrow, or that you, Mr. Speaker, were to grant an emergency debate under Standing Order 24. From the time made available tomorrow for the debate on the programme motion, hon. Members could judge when the debate on Second Reading would start and conclude, and when any vote would occur. That in turn would tell us how much time we had to meet the requirements of the motion. However, we know none of that and we are being forced to debate this motion without knowing what the Government will impose on the House tomorrow.

Mr. Graham Brady: Is not another serious possibility that, if consideration of the Bill is guillotined, as we expect that it will be, the passage of this motion may disadvantage any amendments or new schedules tabled with the benefit of knowledge of what has been said on Second Reading? Amendments tabled before Second Reading may take up all the available time.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, and we shall therefore have an odd phenomenon. I propose to draft today, without having heard the Second Reading debate, amendments that necessarily will be somewhat speculative—although I

shall do my best to imagine what might be said on Second Reading. Conversely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) pointed out, those hon. Members who wait for the Second Reading debate and then try to make sense of new schedules or new clauses will be at a curious disadvantage.

Mr. Hogg: May I point out a further disadvantage to which my right hon. Friend will be put? I know that it is not his practice to attend Westminster Hall—

Mr. Forth: Never.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend says "never", but I know that there is a debate on the future of the green belt, and that that is a master of some concern to him. He might be minded to attend the whole debate in Westminster Hall tomorrow—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether the right hon. Gentleman is so minded or not has nothing to do with the motion.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Speaker, from my right hon. and learned Friend's attempts at seduction.
We are in an extraordinarily difficult position. The Government have tried to portray the motion as an act of generosity, but it is completely the opposite. The House is in an invidious position, with hon. Members being asked to tamper with the country's electoral arrangements—no less—in a limited amount of time and with no proper time allowed for representations from outside, consideration or consultation. There is the great risk that any amendments, new clauses or new schedules that are tabled will be defective, either for the reason set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West a moment ago, or simply because insufficient time has been allowed for their preparation.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The right hon. Gentleman makes the serious and welcome point that the House should never rush through legislation without looking at it. However, that should not detract from the fact that it would not be the first time that hon. Members had written new schedules or amendments without having any idea of what was contained in the Bill connected with the subject matter.

Mr. Forth: It is always reassuring to know that there is a precedent, in which I am, generally speaking, somewhat of a believer. However, my point is that the House is being put at a peculiar disadvantage on this occasion. If we are to be bereft of a summing up by the Minister, there will be no option for some of us but to seek—

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no requirement, in terms of parliamentary propriety, to debate amendments in the chronological order of their tabling? Although no Conservative Member cares a tinker's cuss whether the Minister of State replies to the debate, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be entirely appropriate for the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office to be plucked from his office and instructed to return forthwith to the Chamber?

Mr. Forth: We always welcome the Parliamentary Secretary for his courtesy and consideration to the House,


and his presence would be advantageous. However, the ordering of the sequence of amendments is for Mr. Speaker to determine. We always respect his wisdom in these matters, as we would on this occasion.

Mr. Brady: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: I was about to conclude my remarks, but before I do so I shall of course give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Brady: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend may have treated with undue levity the comments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for whom both he and I have great respect. The hon. Lady said that such a state of affairs was not without precedent. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that, in a constitutional measure of this sort, one should set a higher standard? We should not necessarily expect this measure to proceed without proper precedent. I know of no such precedent. Does my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Forth: I certainly do not and would be interested to know whether the hon. Lady does, for the reason that my hon. Friend has given. This is a constitutional measure of the greatest importance—we know that the Prime Minister has agonised over it—yet the Government seek to rush it through in this unseemly way.
All in all, this is a very sad day. The arrangements are most unsatisfactory. Even in the event of an elegant, comprehensive and lengthy reply from the Minister, I believe that some right hon. and hon. Members may have no option but to vote against the motion to express their disapproval of the whole matter.

Mr. Paul Tyler: The core concern, as I see it, is that although the motion may be intrinsically sound and acceptable in itself, the fact that it does not have alongside it any timetable, programme motion or guillotine arrangements makes it extremely difficult to judge whether it is acceptable. For all we know, the Government may intend to bring matters to a conclusion at 7 o'clock or 11 o'clock tomorrow evening, or at 2 o'clock or 7 o'clock on Thursday morning. In those circumstances, it is extremely difficult for us to judge how the matter will be addressed in the House tomorrow.
Liberal Democrats have no problem with the motion, and I think that that is probably true of other parties as well. The key issue is whether we will be given adequate time to debate properly the amendments that will be brought forward under the motion and give the matter the scrutiny that it requires. I hope that someone on the Government Front Bench can give us an indication of the intended timetable. I have been in the Chamber for a couple of hours, and I may have missed something, but as far as I am aware there has not even been any discussion across the House through the usual channels.

Mr. Hogg: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman heard my point of order. I went to the Table Office and was told that no timetable motion had yet been tabled, so we must assume that the terms have not been drafted.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but that may not be entirely so. He will know

from his experience in government that discussions sometimes take place through the usual channels before the final version of a motion is tabled. It has been known for programme motions to receive the support of all parties in certain circumstances. Given, as I understand it, that the Conservative party—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have spoken at length about the narrowness of the motion. Programming does not come into it—it is strictly about the time limit for amendments. That is what we must debate.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. The importance of the motion—which we support—is not its intrinsic merit but how it fits with the business of the House. My concern is that we do not know how it will operate tomorrow, which will make it difficult to judge its merits.
I plead with the Government to ignore the fact that the Conservative party seems to be at sixes and sevens on this issue. After all, Conservative Members have wanted these elections to be delayed for some weeks, and now that the necessary motion has come before the House to make that a practicality, it is difficult to understand where they are coming from.
Will the Government give us an indication of what the timetable is? Without knowing that, it is extremely difficult to address the motion in a fair and balanced way.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The House should be aware of the immense part of the Elections Bill that refers to Northern Ireland. Four pages refer to England and Wales, but 12 refer to Northern Ireland. I would have thought it only right for a Northern Ireland Minister to be on the Government Front Bench, at least today, because the largest part of the Bill deals with Northern ireland.
The amazing thing is that Northern Ireland does not need to be included in the Bill, as our elections do not need to coincide. They are not even in the same month. We in Northern Ireland know why this has happened—the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister want it, whereas the other parties do not. To us, this is a political move for political advantage.
Elections are at the heart of democracy and there should be no interference, if possible, in the way in which elections are run. Part I of the Bill deals with parliamentary elections rules, about which I am supposed to table amendments. We then come to a large part about local election rules, about which I am supposed to table amendments. [Interruption.] I am looking at the motion, Mr. Speaker, and I am aware of what is in it; it is about tabling amendments, and I am sticking to that. I tried to get that through to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), but you cut me off before I put my question, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to stick to the subject of tabling amendments.
I always thought that we tabled amendments after we heard what the Government thought about a Bill and what it meant. I have written a three-page letter to the Prime Minister, by request from the Northern Ireland Office, in which I put all my views. It was not even acknowledged and I do not know what the response will be. How can I


carry out my duty as leader of a party in Northern Ireland when I do not know the response of the Government to the Bill?

Mr. Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman know of any discussion involving the Northern Ireland Office, his party or any of the parties in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in answer to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said:
As for the way in which amendments will be tabled, it will be done in accordance with the usual procedures of the House."—[Official Report, 2 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 42.]
As I understand it, the motion seeks to extend the normal procedures of the House. Am I right in saying that if the motion were to be rejected, we would fall back to the normal procedures of the House, which would be of lesser benefit to Members on both sides? Would it be in order to ask you to ask whether any Member of the House does not want the extension to the normal procedures, so that we can get on to some sensible business?

Mr. Speaker: It would not be in order to ask me because I am not here to say what the benefits would be of approving the motion. All I can do is to advise the House on how narrow the motion is. It is very narrow, and I would say to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) that he is nearly going beyond its terms. Perhaps he will assist me by getting back to the terms of the motion.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad to hear that you think I am not beyond, but only nearly beyond, the motion, Mr. Speaker. I will not make any further comment and I will leave to your imagination what I am thinking.
In response to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I know that all the parties in Northern Ireland have had discussions with either the Secretary of State or the Minister in charge of elections, and it is clear that the First Minister and his deputy want this delay, while the other parties do not. There are many within the Ulster Unionist party who do not want it either.
It is all right for those in the House who have only four pages to look at; Northern Ireland Members have the vast bulk of the Bill to look at. When we table amendments, we will not know whether we are tabling them with the right view of the Bill, because there is no explanation—not even in the Bill itself. That is a legitimate point to make on this motion, Mr. Speaker, because it concerns the tabling of amendments. How can we do that unless we have some idea of the Government's view, which would usually come out in a Second Reading debate? That is what Second Reading is for.
The matter is complex for Northern Ireland because it has different constituencies for local government. One constituency has four different—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is where the hon. Gentleman is going beyond the scope of the motion.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Perhaps I can ask for your help, Mr. Speaker. How can I table an amendment that will cover a situation in which, instead of one council, we have local government councils in four parliamentary constituencies?

Mr. Speaker: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that whenever I wanted to table amendments, I sought the advice of the Clerks. That is my advice to him.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Clerks will have a long session, because there are great difficulties. As the largest part of the Bill concerns Northern Ireland, there should be adequate time to consider the amendments. We may get a bit of paper that says that the amendments will not be discussed at all. Even if they are on the amendment paper, with the guillotine we may never reach them.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I want to reinforce what the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said. The motion is narrowly phrased but important, and I view it with dismay. I am perfectly prepared to accept that we need emergency legislation, although I would have put a date for the local council elections at the back end of this year—but that is not a matter for this debate.
This is a profoundly unsatisfactory state of affairs, for several reasons. Critically, the motion is only part of the process, and until we also see the timetable motion we do not know whether it is right to agree to it. We are told that we can table amendments until the Bill has its Second Reading, but we do not know whether there will be a substantial gap between Second Reading and Committee stage. If the Committee stage is taken immediately following Second Reading, and that is to be concluded very early tomorrow, in the afternoon sitting, the proposal in the motion is wholly inadequate.
Until we see the timetable motion, we are being asked to discuss an important matter of parliamentary procedure with only one part of it before us. That seems absolute nonsense to me.
Another reason for not liking the motion is that I have already raised with several right hon. and hon. Members—and with you, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker—whether amendments will be acceptable during the Committee stage. You were kind enough to tell the House that that is, in essence, a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means. No doubt that is correct, but it would have been perfectly possible for the Government, when drafting the motion, to provide for the acceptance of amendments, new clauses and new schedules during Committee.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: As you, Mr. Speaker, were kind enough to say that the question of amendments at the Committee stage would be a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, I took that to mean that Members of the House would at least be able to table amendments at that stage so that they could be considered by the Chairman of Ways and Means. I regarded that as


enlightening the House. Did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) have the same impression?

Mr. Hogg: Yes, I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend is right about that. However, whether the amendments, new clauses and new schedules will be debatable or debated is a matter partly for the timetable and partly for the discretion of the Chairman of Ways and Means. You are nodding, Mr. Speaker, so I assume that I have got it right, which is of great reassurance to me—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Amendments and new schedules can be tabled, but it is at the discretion of the Chair whether they are accepted for debate.

Mr. Hogg: The point that I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) wants to make, and which I certainly want to make, is that as the Government thought it right to make provision for the tabling of amendments, new schedules and whatever up until the moment of Second Reading, it would have been perfectly possible for them to have covered the Committee stage and Report. Had they done that, people such as myself and my right hon. and learned Friend would have been much happier.

Mr. Charles Clarke: I doubt it.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman says that he doubts it, but the truth is that many Members are seriously concerned about the House's procedures. They feel that the House has been abused by Labour Members over a long period—[Interruption.]

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that shouting by Government Members from a sedentary position once again reinforces a point that so many Conservative Members have believed for a long time—Labour Members do not care about democracy. They believe in an elective dictatorship, and this motion is yet another example of that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will not answer that intervention.

Mr. Hogg: In view of your comments, Mr. Speaker, I will not respond in detail to my hon. Friend's comments. However, had we more confidence in the democratic credentials of the Labour party, we should be happier with the motion.
The plain truth is that the Bill is important. It will affect many individuals. It also raises technical points of some complexity. One can determine what the amendments should be only as a result partly of representations made from outside and partly from debate in the House. Under the motion, all that we will be able to do with certainty is to table amendments right up until the end of the Second Reading debate, but not thereafter. We should be much happier if we could do so during Committee and during Report stage, if there is one.
That brings me to my final point. We have been told by the Minister of State, Home Office that draft copies of the Bill were given to my hon. Friend the Member for

Tiverton and Honiton and, no doubt, to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)—or whoever—in the Liberal Democratic party. That is good as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. The hon. Member for North Antrim made the point, as did the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), that the Ulster Unionists were not given a proper view of any draft Bill. Scottish National party Members have said nothing, because none of them are in the Chamber, but no doubt they were in a similar position.
It is a lamentable state of affairs when significant minority parties are ignored. Indeed, the matter goes much further than that. What are the rights of Back Benchers? I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton received the draft Bill. That is splendid, but as she knows full well, I often proceed on my own agenda, and I would have liked to have seen the Bill—and so, I am sure, would my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Mrs. Browning: I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that in my opening remarks I emphasised that although Conservative Front-Bench Members received a copy of the draft Bill last night, as shadow Leader of the House I was concerned about the rights of Back Benchers.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is always so concerned, which is very much to her credit, but I take advantage of the opportunity to say that it is the duty of the Government to consult the House if they want their legislation to be passed. We are the House; it is not only my hon. Friend.

Mr. Denis MacShane: The House, c'est moi.

Mr. Hogg: No, we are the House, and I even include the hon. Gentleman in that, although I sometimes find that a rather difficult thing to do.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has been saying for a long time that the Government should have published enabling provisions for the legislation some time ago. If the Government had heeded his advice, a draft Bill would have been published 10 or 14 days ago and we would have had an informed discussion last week after proper consultation with the Local Government Association and other representatives. As it is, an important constitutional Bill will be rammed through the House tomorrow on the back of this motion and a timetable motion, the contents of which we do not know—and on any view of the matter that is profoundly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) have made a particularly important point about the fact that a copy of the draft Bill was provided only for official Opposition Front-Bench Members and not to the hon. Gentleman, even though, as he pointed out, he is the leader of a party in Northern Ireland.


I have the advantage of having a copy of that draft Bill. One of the significant changes to the Bill since last night refers, as the hon. Gentleman suspected it would, to Northern Ireland. Clause 4 contains no fewer than six changes to the text about Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] I am trying to restrict my comments to the motion. The concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be as good as his word and to restrict his comments to the motion, he will have to wait another day to continue with his point.

Mr. Hawkins: My point concerns the way in which amendments can be tabled, and it was made by the hon. Member for North Antrim. He is a party leader, but he did not have the advantage of seeing the draft Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton did, so it is difficult for him to know how to table amendments. As he says, much of the Bill relates to Northern Ireland. One of the significant changes made to the Bill since last night relates to the text on Northern Ireland, and I have counted no fewer than six amendments. That makes it more difficult to table amendments—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The motion is not concerned with difficulty; it is simply about timing.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply wanted to echo the point about minority parties which was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. It will be difficult to debate amendments when even the leaders of minority parties have not have the chance to see the draft Bill.

Mr. Charles Clarke: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond briefly to the debate. On an earlier point of order, I apologised to the leaders of Northern Ireland parties for the difficulties. I subsequently learned that part copies were given to the party offices yesterday evening, but they took more time to emerge than is desirable. I apologise again for those difficulties.
I emphasise that whatever the date until which local elections are postponed, we need legislation forthwith to effect the postponement. That is why we are using this rapid process, and everybody agrees that it is in the greater interest of all those involved in the local elections rapidly to enact the legislation.

Mr. Forth: Surely the Minister must concede that we have been put in this position because the Prime Minister has delayed making his decision until the last possible moment, so to say that we must agree to the motion because of the timetable for the local elections is to put things back to front.

Mr. Clarke: I hear that political point, but I simply say that the Prime Minister likes to take decisions on the basis of the facts, rather than on the basis of situations that otherwise might become apparent.
The main point to make on the motion is that the House has only one matter to determine: does it wish to extend the rights of Members to give notice of amendments, new clauses and new schedules? That is the only issue that must be addressed.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: rose—

Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way.
I hope that the House will agree that we should extend the rights of Back Benchers to ensure that we have a more informed debate, and for that reason I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Graham Brady: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I am forced to do so, as the Minister was not prepared to deal with a brief inquiry that I directed at him. He has spoken very briefly, which, of course, is an improvement on what he originally offered to do; he originally was not going to have the courtesy to reply to the debate. Will he give us some small detail of the Government's timetable for the provisions? That is directly pertinent to the matter that we are debating. If the timetable is to be particularly compressed, there will be additional difficulties in tabling and debating amendments or new schedules.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The point the hon. Gentleman makes is not only repetitious, as it has been made many times during the debate, but outside the strict terms of the motion.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not seek to repeat any point at all; of course, I have not made a speech in the debate.
Before hon. Members decide how to vote in any Division that may be called, it is important that they know the practical implications of the motion. If we allow amendments to be tabled before the completion of Second Reading, the Minister must intimate whether that will be our only opportunity to table amendments or whether we shall have other opportunities to do so and whether there will be a period between the conclusion of Second Reading and the commencement of the other stages.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can the House do anything to protect the Chair from being harangued by the Government Deputy Chief Whip, who is probably asking for a premature closure?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly in order for any hon. Member to approach the Chair at any time.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you care to help me on one matter? I can, of course, understand the ruling that an hon. Member is out of order, but the word "repetitious" troubles me. Having been a Member for 20 years, it occurs to me that our arguments are repeated many times, and when did that become—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be familiar with Standing Order No. 42.

Mr. Brady: We are all familiar with Standing Order No. 42, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to detain the


House. As I said at the commencement of my remarks, I had not intended to speak. I hope that the Minister will take note of the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand how important it is that we know the Government's timetable before we arrive at a conclusion on the motion. I implore him to think again, and not to be so arrogant as to refuse to give important information that is directly pertinent to the matter in hand.

Mr. Miller: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a straight question? Is he in favour of extending the normal practices of the House for the purposes of this business, or is he in favour of sticking to the normal practices?

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making some very interesting interventions, in one of which he suggested that the Leader of the House had inadvertently misled the House in a statement on Monday. However, I am pressing the Minister on the vital point that we cannot make a rational judgment on the motion unless he is prepared to give us important but simple information on whether the timetable will be tight and compressed, whether there will be a gap between Second Reading and Committee and whether we shall have a longer period to debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating himself, and in my hearing. The fact of the matter is that what the motion seeks to do is quite independent of any other timetable motion, which presumably will be discussed by the House on a future occasion.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You were good enough refer me to Standing Order No. 42, but might it not help the House if it knew that repetition per se is not objectionable? Repetition is objectionable only if it is tedious.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That will be a matter for my ruling.

Mr. Brady: The timetable may be outwith the scope of this motion, but my point is simple. My decision on how I cast my vote in any Division on the motion will depend very much on the Minister's response to my question.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mrs. Browning: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You were not here at the beginning of the debate, but I am sure that you will have followed what happened. Before the conclusion of this debate, may I please have an answer to the question that I asked initially? Will manuscript amendments be acceptable on all stages of the Bill tomorrow?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot add to the ruling that Mr. Speaker gave a short while ago. It was entirely definitive, and I stand by it.

Mr. Brady: I was about to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, on the question of the tabling of amendments, probably the

most worrying feature of the debate so far is the fact that the Minister does not seem to know whether the contents of the motion are prescriptive or merely permissive?

Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend makes an important point. More to the point, the Minister does not appear to know whether the Government intend to timetable this business or what timetable will be applied.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is either wilfully or carelessly mishearing my rulings. This motion has nothing to do with the timetabling.

Mr. Brady: My aim was quite the contrary, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without challenging your ruling, I was simply seeking to conclude my sentence but, at that point, you interrupted my remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should consider his reputation in the House before making such a suggestion. I advise him to desist from continuing with that argument.

Mr. Brady: That is precisely what I was trying to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was attempting to conclude a sentence, to conclude a point and to conclude my remarks. All I want from the Minister is an indication of what the timetable will be, because that will inform my decision.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will be in serious trouble if he goes on defying the Chair after a ruling has been made. I take it that he has now sat down and concluded his speech.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The common objective of us all must be to try to enact sensible legislation on this fairly narrow point. It is plain that, regardless of the time that there may be between the Bill's different stages, it will be a tight timetable. The Leader of the House tabled this motion to enable amendments to be tabled before Second Reading, which is unusual.
When you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were not in the Chair—Mr. Speaker was in the Chair—a perfectly logical supplementary question was asked. Will amendments be considered by the Chair—you were not here, but you might have to consider them—in Committee and on Report?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has a collective memory on these matters and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard me respond to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), repeating, in effect, Mr. Speaker's ruling on that question. The position is unchanged and the motion before the House in no way affects that speculative situation.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: You called me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I fully understand that, but may I raise a point of order about the collective memory of the Chair? I have been here throughout the debate, so I have a collective—or, at least, an individual—recollection of what was uttered. What came home to me was that Mr. Speaker made it clear that you, in your capacity as


Chairman of Ways and Means, will consider amendments in Committee. I take it that you will also consider amendments on Report.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is again going over the same ground. Mr. Speaker has given the correct position. Such matters will be considered in due course. This, however, is not the time.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall return to my serious point. Much legislation has been erroneous in this Parliament, not least because time for debate has been unduly truncated. The process of debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is again directing his remarks towards the amount of time that is available for discussion. That is well and good, but it is not within the terms of the motion to extend the normal time in which amendments can be tabled. It is a separate matter.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I build on what my right hon. and learned Friend said?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I have dealt with that.

Mr. Hogg: On a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman begins by saying that he wants to build on one matter and then changes his ground. Can he be clear?

Mr. Hogg: Yes, of course. Mr. Speaker said that it was for the Chairman of Ways and Means to give a ruling. You could give a ruling now on whether you will accept manuscript amendments during the Committee and Report stages—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is testing the patience of the Chair. Mr. Speaker said that the matters would be discussed on their merits. That is the exact position.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Incidentally, when would you like the election?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is most assuredly not a matter for me.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My final remark was directed at the importance of our ability to table amendments at an appropriate time so that Bills can be properly considered and their errors corrected. All hon. Members will realise that the legislative process is not the monopoly of the Government of the day; it relies on the will of the House. The procedure, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are astute in protecting, is designed to give every Member due opportunity to contribute to proposed legislation in the hope—sometimes misguided; often well directed—that it will better meet the country's needs.

Mr. Forth: Has my right hon. and learned Friend resolved for himself the dilemma that we all face?

Given that the motion allows amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be tabled before Second Reading, is he, like me, going to draft those today speculatively, or does he intend to table them at the last minute when he has heard that debate?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My understanding is that I am entitled—indeed, encouraged—to table amendments, new clauses or new schedules now and until a decision is made on Second Reading. I also understand that I am entitled to table amendments in Committee for your consideration, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be dealt with as you think fit. I might be looking too far ahead and further guidance might be forthcoming, but I believe that, in addition, I will be able to do that on Report. I shall do my best to do all those things.

Mr. Forth: Given the circumstances that the motion outlines, does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that he has sufficient opportunity to receive representations from local government interests in his constituency? Such representations would inform the process—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is completely irrelevant to the motion.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I entirely understand that. The answer to my right hon. Friend's question would depend on the time that was allocated.
One has to have time in which to table sensible amendments; we must also have an opportunity to reflect. I shall determine the amendments that I shall table pursuant to the ruling on which I am concentrating. If I have calculated correctly, the time available lasts until tomorrow night if the Elections Bill receives a Second Reading. Following the Chair's guidance, which we have just received, I anticipate further discussions on timetabling, with which we cannot deal now.
The Bill is complex.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some extremely important prospective legislation has been tabled on the Order Paper for discussion today. The whole world awaits it. The measure will be discussed in Parliaments throughout the world. When will we end the nonsensical debate that we are currently holding? Conservative Members are wasting time. Why will they not stop?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate is proceeding in order. When it does not, the Chair takes corrective action.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will bear in mind that we are discussing a complex Bill. We want to get it right—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is incorrect. We are not discussing a Bill, but a technical motion, which extends the amount of time for tabling amendments. That is the sole, narrow point before the House. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to stay within my ruling, I suggest that he remain seated.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Of course, I always stay within your rulings, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In directing our


attention to the amendments that the motion gives us an opportunity to table, our objective is to improve the Bill. I hope that the House supports that.

Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to keep within the rules of the debate. At the beginning of our proceedings, the Minister apologised to the minority parties. He also said that the Northern Ireland Office or someone else had advised him that we had been given information through our offices late last night. I must put it on record that some of us were here until late last night. I understand through consultation with the leader of the Democratic Unionist party that notice was sent to Stormont. Surely the information should be provided to us here rather than in Stormont.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, I apologised earlier for what had happened. I want to clarify matters further, and I shall write to him and his colleagues with a full account of events.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 11.

Division No. 172]
[5.8 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Allan, Richard



Allen, Graham
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell-Savours, Dale



Cann, Jamie


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Caplin, Ivor


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Casale, Roger


Atherton, Ms Candy
Caton, Martin


Atkins, Charlotte
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Austin, John
Clapham, Michael


Bailey, Adrian
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ballard, Jackie
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Barnes, Harry



Barron, Kevin
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Battle, John
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clelland, David


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clwyd, Ann


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Coleman, Iain


Bennett, Andrew F
Connarty, Michael


Benton, Joe
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Berry, Roger
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Best, Harold
Corbett, Robin


Betts, Clive
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blackman, Liz
Corston, Jean


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cotter, Brian


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cox, Tom


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cranston, Ross


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Crausby, David


Bradshaw, Ben
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Breed, Colin
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cummings, John


Browne, Desmond
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Darvill, Keith


Buck, Ms Karen
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Burgon, Colin
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Burstow, Paul
Davidson, Ian


Butler, Mrs Christine
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dawson, Hilton


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dean, Mrs Janet





Dismore, Andrew
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dobbin, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Donohoe, Brian H
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Doran, Frank
Keetch, Paul


Dowd, Jim
Kemp, Fraser


Drew, David
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Khabra, Piara S


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kidney, David


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ellman, Mrs Louise
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Ennis, Jeff
Kingham, Ms Tess


Fearn, Ronnie
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fisher, Mark
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Laxton, Bob


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Leslie, Christopher


Flint, Caroline
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Foster, Don (Bath)
Linton, Martin


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Livsey, Richard


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foulkes, George
Lock, David


Fyfe, Maria
Love, Andrew


Galloway, George
McAvoy, Thomas


Gapes, Mike
McDonagh, Siobhain


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Macdonald, Calum


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
McFall, John


Gerrard, Neil
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gidley, Sandra
McIsaac, Shona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Goggins, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McNamara, Kevin


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grocott, Bruce
McWilliam, John


Grogan, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gunnell, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hain, Peter
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hanson, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Martlew, Eric


Harvey, Nick
Maxton, John


Healey, John
Meale, Alan


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Merron, Gillian


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Hendrick, Mark
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hepburn, Stephen
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Heppell, John
Miller, Andrew


Hesford, Stephen
Mitchell, Austin


Hill, Keith
Moffatt, Laura


Hinchliffe, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moore, Michael


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hope, Phil
Mountford, Kali


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mullin, Chris


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Illsley, Eric
O'Hara, Eddie


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Olner, Bill


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Neill, Martin


Jamieson, David
Öpik, Lembit


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)
Osborne, Ms Sandra



Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pike, Peter L


Joyce, Eric
Plaskitt, James






Pollard, Kerry
Stringer, Graham


Pond, Chris
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pound, Stephen
Stunell, Andrew


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prosser, Gwyn
Temple-Morris, Peter


Quinn, Lawrie
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rapson, Syd
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Rendel, David
Timms, Stephen


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Tonge, Dr Jenny



Touhig, Don


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Trickett, Jon


Rooney, Terry
Truswell, Paul


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Roy, Frank
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ruane, Chris
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruddock, Joan
Tyler, Paul


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tynan, Bill


Salter, Martin
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sanders, Adrian
Walley, Ms Joan


Sarwar, Mohammad
Ward, Ms Claire


Savidge, Malcolm
Wareing, Robert N


Sedgemore, Brian
Watts, David


Shaw, Jonathan
Webb, Steve


Sheerman, Barry
White, Brian


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Shipley, Ms Debra
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)



Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Willis, Phil


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wills, Michael



Wilson, Brian


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Winnick, David


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wood, Mike


Soley, Clive
Woodward, Shaun


Squire, Ms Rachel
Woolas, Phil


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Worthington, Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stevenson, George
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)



Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stinchcombe, Paul
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Mr. Greg Pope.




NOES


Body, Sir Richard
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Chope, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Davis Rt Hon David (Halternprice)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tellers for the Noes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Eric Forth and


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. Crispin Blunt.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Elections Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.

Orders of the Day — International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
At the outset, I remind the House that the Bill has attracted wide support and interest around the country. Non-governmental organisations from Amnesty International to the Red Cross and Save the Children have all supported it. Some of those organisations will have tuned in at 3.45 pm in order to follow the proceedings of the House. I have to say that they will have viewed with incomprehension the proceedings they have watched for the past hour and a half, which have correspondingly reduced the time available to debate this historic step on international justice.

Mr. Eric Forth: Rubbish.

Mr. Cook: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to continue to decry the views of those organisations, I warn him that, from what I know of Bromley, it is precisely the place where many members of Amnesty International, the Red Cross and Save the Children live. I hope that those members saw the gesture that he made as he dismissed his constituents' views.
There could be no more appropriate week in which to consider the Bill on International Criminal Court ratification. Only three days ago, ex-President Milosevic was arrested. He is today in prison—a fate far better than that which befell the many thousands of victims of his wars in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo.
There could be no clearer case for the need to achieve international justice than that of Milosevic. We have all seen the harrowing photographs of his victims: the starved prisoners of the concentration camps in Bosnia; the families burnt when their homes were fire-bombed in waves of ethnic cleansing; the hundreds of thousands of Kosovars fleeing terror; and the corpses of the men of an entire village, whom I saw where they had fallen herded together in a farm outbuilding to be massacred by paramilitaries.
I warmly echo the statement by President Kostunica that Milosevic's arrest proves that no one is above the law. Ex-President Milosevic has been arrested for his crimes against the Serb people. I believe that it will be valuable for the Serb people to learn the scale on which Milosevic looted their country; that he made himself rich while he made them poor; and that he rigged their elections and abused the power that came with the false results.
Milosevic was not a great nationalist, but a great enemy of the Serb people. I therefore support Milosevic being charged and tried for his crimes in Serbia, but that can be no substitute for a trial of Milosevic for his atrocities against the other peoples of Yugoslavia. As soon as Milosevic has submitted to legal process for his crimes in Serbia, he must be surrendered to the tribunal in The Hague to face justice for his crimes against Bosniacs and


Kosovars. I urge the Government of Serbia to make that day more certain by serving Milosevic with the indictment drawn up by the war crimes tribunal.
What makes the case of Milosevic unusual is the fact that there is an international tribunal to pursue justice throughout the former Yugoslavia. Apart from Rwanda, no other part of the globe has an international mechanism to call dictators to account.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be entirely wrong to see proceedings against Mr. Milosevic in Serbia on the basis of allegations of corruption and fraud as in any way a substitute for his appearance in The Hague on the basis of indictments consisting of allegations against him in respect of crimes against humanity? It should not be thought, should it, that an appearance in Serbia will somehow constitute a tholing of his assize?

Mr. Cook: I entirely agree. I have said that on a number of occasions over the past three days. I think that what is happening now can serve as a useful step along the road, ensuring that more people in Serbia understand the importance of handing Milosevic over for trial in The Hague. It can, however, be only one step along a road whose end must be in The Hague, where Milosevic must stand trial for his wider atrocities.
As I was saying, it is only in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda that such mechanisms are available. There is no institution to bring to justice the Idi Amins or the Saddam Husseins, and there is nowhere for the victims of their crimes to seek redress before the law. That is the case for a standing international criminal court.
Both international criminal tribunals are providing a valuable remedy for crimes against humanity, but months if not years were lost in devising the structure of those tribunals and drawing up the rules of procedure. That is the case for a permanent centre of legal expertise and agreed procedures.
I began by referring to the wide support for the Bill throughout the British community of non-governmental organisations. There is also support from the legal community that is as near to being universal as is possible among lawyers. Even the Opposition have hitherto expressed enthusiastic support for the establishment of an international criminal court. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who speaks from the Front Bench most frequently on the issue, is on record as saying:
I have mentioned our broad support for the court, support the Conservative party has offered for decades. We have always supported the principle, and shall continue to do so by helping the Minister in any way that we can."—[Official Report, 27 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 945.]
The Opposition now have an opportunity to prove how helpful they wish to be.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: As the Foreign Secretary knows, I represent Aldershot, which is the home of the British Army. Perhaps he can tell us what support there is for the Bill among senior service men, and what reservations any of them may have entered, privately or otherwise.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has been helpful by asking my right hon. Friend

the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the armed forces. He answered, on 16 March, "None." I refer the hon. Gentleman to that answer, which continues:
The priority of the Ministry of Defence in the drafting of the … Bill and its passage through Parliament has been to ensure that members of the armed forces are fully protected from malicious or ill-founded prosecution … The armed forces have been closely involved in the consultation process. I am confident that the Bill … provides all necessary protection."—[0fficial Report, 16 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 756W.]
I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary, but can he tell us what reservations the British Government intend to enter, as, for example, the French Government have?

Mr. Cook: I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is no provision in the statute for reservations. The French Government made a declaration; we have not yet resolved the question of whether we would wish to make one, but such a declaration would of course have no legal effect.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Mr. Cook: I will, but then, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must make progress.

Mr. Brazier: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that, under the treaty as it now stands, if the prosecutor, who appears to be answerable to no one and who is appointed for a fixed nine-year term, decides that a member of this country's armed forces has not been sufficiently or satisfactorily investigated by our own criminal justice system, military and civilian, that prosecutor can decide to pursue a case against that member of the British armed forces?

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his understanding of the statute on that matter. The prosecutor can launch such a prosecution only if he or she can sustain a case that the case was dropped in order to conceal or to protect someone against whom there was a bona fide case. However, it would not be the decision only of the prosecutor. The British delegation to the Rome negotiations had written into the statute the provision that the prosecutor can launch an investigation—let alone a prosecution—only with the approval of the pre-trial chamber of judges.
Indeed, when we reported that outcome of the Rome conference in 1998, the Conservative spokesman in the other place, Lord Kingsland, described the pre-trial chamber as
a great achievement
which will
wash out of the system any bogus allegations."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 20 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 626.]
I hope that that will be of comfort to members of the same party as Lord Kingsland.
It requires 60 countries to ratify the Rome statute before the International Criminal Court comes into existence. The passage of the Bill will put Britain in the first 60. That is important not just because we will have helped to


bring the court into existence, but because those that have ratified are the only countries with a say in setting up its procedure and appointments. As a country that had ratified the statute, Britain could nominate candidates, vote in the elections of the prosecutor and judges and have a say in the adoption of the procedural rules.
Britain has a long tradition as an architect of legal innovations. The most recent example was the Lockerbie trial, where we created legal history by mounting a trial under Scottish Law in a third country. Britain has much to contribute to ensuring that the International Criminal Court gets off to the best and most sound start, but it is plainly in our own national interest to be there when the crucial decisions are taken; for our own judges to be eligible for election to the bench; and for us to have a say in who that prosecutor will be.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Would my right hon. Friend like to consider not only what a blow it would be to our national interest, but what view the other countries would take if, having played such a leading part in the formulation of the statute, we were to resile as a result of party games in this place?

Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend helpfully brings me to a point that I wish to stress. The Bill reflects the statute negotiated at Rome. In the negotiation of that statute, the British delegation played an important role in securing the changes that we wished to see. I pay special tribute to Sir Franklin Berman, the legal adviser at the Foreign Office, who led the British delegation and who deployed his great expertise as an authority in international law to secure a number of improvements that strengthen the Rome statute.
Those included steps that widen the remit of the court. First, the definition of war crimes now applies to internal conflicts, not only to wars between states. That was a highly significant amendment to secure as there have been few wars between states in the past generation, but all too many conflicts within states. Often, such ethnic civil wars produce the most savage crimes against humanity.
Secondly, the offences before the court now include crimes of sexual violence, such as the use of mass rape as an instrument of ethnic cleansing. The British delegation was also instrumental in supporting the power of the court to try those responsible for forcing children into combat.

Mr. David Winnick: Apart from all the mass murderers since 1945, is it not a fact that, if such a court had been in existence straight after the war, many Nazi war criminals and mass murderers who carried out the most horrifying crimes on behalf of the Third Reich would have been caught and tried? Instead, many of them got to the west or to Latin America and escaped scot free.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a valuable and important point. At that time, we did not have a standing mechanism for implementing international justice. Moreover, the time that is lost as the Security Council resolves to establish such a mechanism is valuable time in which evidence can be destroyed and those who are accused can disappear.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way, and I think that my

intervention will not come as a complete surprise to him. I have always supported the principle of what the Government are trying to do with the court. However, could the right hon. Gentleman please advise me why—although the former Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) wrote to me to say that there was a strong possibility that the Government would be making representations to the new Government of Syria on the continued sheltering of the worst Nazi war criminal still at large, Aloȹs Brunner—in February, I was given yet another stonewalling response from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office saying that nothing had been done and that nothing was going to be done? Will the Foreign Secretary please make those representations?

Mr. Cook: I am not sure that I would accept the hon. Gentleman's characterisation of stonewalling. The issue of Mr. Brunner's existence has been raised on many occasions with the Syrian Government, most notably by France, which is the jurisdiction within which he has been convicted. On all occasions, the Syrian Government deny all knowledge of him or suggest that, in so far as they have knowledge, he is dead. If the hon. Gentleman can furnish me with fresh evidence with which I can challenge that assertion by the Syrian Government, I would be very happy to do so.

Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Cook: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, and then I must make progress.

Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend is making a very important point. Although I very much welcome the establishment of the International Criminal Court, its powers will of course not be retrospective, and my right hon. Friend is making the point that very valuable time will be lost. However, United Kingdom courts already have jurisdiction over crimes—including the crimes of torture and of hijacking—that are committed outside the United Kingdom by non-nationals. Earlier, my right hon. Friend said that Saddam Hussein could not be tried by a future international criminal court for past crimes. He could, however, be tried under the other system. Why have the British courts not taken action against leading members of the Iraqi regime who are responsible for hijacking and kidnapping British citizens in Kuwait?

Mr. Cook: Of course we will pursue any practical or reasonable way of bringing Saddam Hussein to justice. Currently—perhaps regrettably—the prospect of Saddam Hussein being held to account within British jurisdiction is highly theoretical and I do not anticipate circumstances in which he would enter our jurisdiction. However, although my hon. Friend is correct that the effect of the International Criminal Court Bill is not retrospective, it will catch every crime from the moment that it comes into effect. For me, that is one of the reasons why we should make all possible speed in bringing the treaty into effect, which requires those 60 countries to ratify it. I hope that Britain will be one of them.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: rose—

Mr. Cook: If I could ask my hon. Friend to allow me to continue, I shall undertake to give way to him later.
I was describing the gains secured by the British delegation at the Rome conference. There were other gains to be secured in the sanctions available to the court. On those, the British delegation secured two important points of principle. First, the court will have the power to order those found guilty to pay reparation to their victims. That reflects the reality that those who abuse their power to torture and murder also abuse their power to make themselves rich.
Secondly, the court will not have the option of ordering the death penalty. The Government have consistently lobbied against the death penalty in all circumstances. We therefore successfully resisted attempts by other countries to include the death penalty in the sanctions available to the court. We took the view that it would be inconsistent to lobby internationally against the death penalty while extending such a power to an international court.
Perhaps the greatest achievement of the British delegation was to secure overwhelming support for an international criminal court. At the end of several weeks of negotiations, 120 countries voted for the statute, and only seven voted against.
The Bill makes provision for the UK to meet its obligations to the International Criminal Court and therefore enables us to ratify the Rome statute. It may be for the convenience of the House if I briefly set out the principal purpose of each part of the Bill.
Part I defines the International Criminal Court by reference to the terms of the Rome statute. The Bill follows closely the provisions of that statute.
Part II provides for the arrest of suspects indicted by the International Criminal Court and puts in place an expedited procedure for their transfer to The Hague. In practice, these circumstances are likely to arise only when a national of another state who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court visits the UK.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Secretary of State has referred to the extradition procedure under part II. Will he confirm that the Bill contains no provision for the competent court considering an extradition application to review the merits of the arrest warrant, or the application to deliver?

Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. As I said, the Bill proposes an expedited system of transfer that follows very closely the system adopted by the previous Government for transfer in relation to the war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. It has been standing procedure to expedite transfers required by an international court. We are not dealing here with normal extradition between two countries.
Part III of the Bill enables us to give full assistance to International Criminal Court investigations—for example, by the seizure of evidence and by interviewing suspects and witnesses. There is also provision for freezing property and assets at the request of the court.
Part IV of the Bill provides for prisoners convicted by the International Criminal Court to serve their sentences in British jails. It sets out how we shall put into effect other orders of the court, such as those involving forfeiture of assets, restitution and compensation.
Part V incorporates into domestic law the offences in the statute of the International Criminal Court. Domestic courts will have jurisdiction over such crimes committed

in the UK or committed by UK nationals anywhere in the world. These provisions will also apply to anyone resident in the UK, irrespective of their nationality or of the country in which the alleged crime was committed. That removes any concern that the absence of such a provision could leave Britain a safe haven for war criminals who have not yet been indicted by the International Criminal Court.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there could be a serious loophole in the Bill unless there is a clear definition of the term "residence"? A person claiming to be in transit through the country could be just as big a criminal as someone who is resident here, but would escape justice.

Mr. Cook: I am deeply sceptical that our courts could be bamboozled as easily as my hon. Friend seems to suggest. The concept of residence is not novel in law, and I am sure that the courts will be confident and comfortable when it comes to dealing with it.

Mr. Mackinlay: Lord Archer of Sandwell, the former Labour Solicitor-General, took a different view of that in another place. In addition, the templates of other comparable statutes, such as the one passed in Canada, contain a provision for universal jurisdiction, rather than a residential qualification that is subject to interpretation. I hope that the Government will reconsider that in Committee.
A question has been raised about executive jurisdiction, and I want to ask my right hon. Friend why clause 21 allows the Secretary of State a discretion when it comes to surrendering a person sought by the ICC. My right hon. Friend rightly referred to the test and the pre-trial provisions, so should not a request from the ICC be acceded to, rather than subject to political discretion?

Mr. Cook: I shall respond first to my hon. Friend's question about the Secretary of State's discretion. The statute provides that that discretion is exercised only in consultation with the International Criminal Court. I hope that that will be some safeguard against my hon. Friend's anxieties.
On my hon. Friend's other point, let us be clear that we are not talking about people who have been indicted by the International Criminal Court. In any case in which people have been indicted by the International Criminal Court, the Bill will give us the authority to apprehend them and transfer them to The Hague for trial. In that sense, the International Criminal Court will have universal jurisdiction. The Bill provides for us to ensure that that jurisdiction applies in Britain.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I want to take the Foreign Secretary back to the achievements of Sir Franklin Berman and his team in their negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the pre-trial chamber of judges and said, in reply to an intervention, that it would review a decision of a prosecutor who had, in effect, gone bad and was bringing prosecutions against countries which should not be brought. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that it also works the other way, and that when prosecutions are not brought by the prosecutor, it is possible for people to appeal to the pre-trial


chamber—for example, state parties and the Security Council—to get the prosecutor to overturn the decision and proceed with a prosecution?
I should be grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's clarification, because I am not quite sure of the terms of article 15, which seems to indicate that the prosecutor and the pre-trial chamber must both decide whether there is a reasonable basis on which to proceed. It is not clear whether one can appeal to the pre-trial chamber for a prosecution to proceed when the prosecutor has decided not to do so.

Mr. Cook: I was asked about the safeguard on the prosecutor, on the basis that the prosecutor is not accountable. The pre-trial chamber is a safeguard against malicious or vexatious use of that power. Any state party can refer a matter to the International Criminal Court, and I welcome that. I can envisage circumstances in which we, as a state party, might wish to use that initiative to make a reference to the International Criminal Court. The Security Council can also make such a reference in circumstances in which it believes that the matter raises issues of threat to international peace and order.
I should like to conclude my description of the Bill. Although we are not obliged by the Rome statute to incorporate these offences into our domestic law, we believe that part V provides an important safeguard for British citizens. It means that in all circumstances Britain will be able to pursue any bona fide allegation of an offence by United Kingdom citizens through our domestic courts, rather than allowing proceedings to take their course through the International Criminal Court.
The central point of these provisions is to enable the International Criminal Court to launch prosecutions against war criminals who cannot be tried because the system of law and order in their state has collapsed or because the criminals themselves are too powerful to be held to account by their own people.
The Rome statute creates the post of an independent prosecutor who can launch both investigations and prosecutions. The independence of the prosecutor is an important point of principle which Britain fully supported. The problem with dispensing international justice through the creation of ad hoc tribunals is that agreement has to be sought every time through the Security Council. The independence of the prosecutor means that a prosecution can be initiated, even in circumstances in which one or other member of the Security Council might have sought to block it.
I stress that in creating this international remedy, there is no intention to release Governments from their obligation to maintain a domestic remedy for crimes against humanity; on the contrary, it is a fundamental principle of the Rome statute that the best place to try any crime is at the national level. The international community has not established a court so that its individual members can abdicate their responsibility to hold their citizens to account before domestic courts.

Mr. William Cash: On the compatibility of the international and the domestic courts, where is the line drawn between the two in respect of the mental test that is applicable to a criminal act? Will offences be judged

on the same basis? What remedy is to be made available for any vexatious attempts to bring people to justice when that is not justified?

Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the statement of the offences in the Bill and the statement of the offences in the statute of Rome—the basis on which the court will act—are identical. In schedule 8, the issue of intent is repeatedly stated in terms of the offences. The offences, as set out there, are identical to those that will be in the statute.
Since the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) asks about vexatious prosecution, perhaps I can turn to the how the Bill and the court may affect British service personnel. I am aware of the concerns that some service personnel may end up before the International Criminal Court. Those concerns are misplaced. We took great care during the Rome conference to make sure that the service personnel of the UK—or, for that matter, of our allies—could not be exposed to politically motivated prosecutions.
In the first place, the International Criminal Court has no authority to initiate an investigation where the allegations have already been examined by the appropriate national authorities. The International Criminal Court will be a complementary jurisdiction—that is to say, it will only step in when states have proved themselves incapable of investigating, or unwilling to investigate, a crime against humanity.
Members on both sides of the House should have a robust confidence that the British legal system has adequate remedies for crimes against humanity and can satisfactorily demonstrate to the International Criminal Court that any such allegations have been properly investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted. In short, British service personnel will never be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court because any bona fide allegation will be pursued by the British authorities.

Mr. Brazier: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Mr. Cook: I will on this occasion, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that we have already lost an hour and a half of this debate and others will wish to speak.

Mr. Brazier: I understand that. However, if there were to be a case involving special forces—or a covert operation in which the identity of the people concerned had to be kept secret not only for their protection but for that of their families—how would we be able to show a special prosecutor that an adequate investigation had been carried out while maintaining the veil of secrecy if allegations were made by an enemy?

Mr. Cook: It is no new legal principle that those who may be investigated may retain their anonymity. That is observed regularly in Britain and I do not see the problem there. However, the provisions on this matter in the Bill closely parallel the provisions in the statute setting up the war crimes tribunal for former Yugoslavia. The previous Government acceded to the war crimes tribunal for former Yugoslavia in the full knowledge that there were several thousand British service men in the area. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that that included some of those to whom he has just referred.
Although the previous Government knew that those personnel were serving in former Yugoslavia and would come within the remit and scope of the war crimes tribunal, that did not prevent them—quite properly; I approve of what they did—from agreeing not only that the tribunal should be set up, but that Britain should fully co-operate with it. They were right to do so because they were confident that the circumstances would not arise in which British personnel would be exposed to a vexatious prosecution. If that were right in the case of former Yugoslavia and the British personnel on active service in difficult circumstances there, it is equally valid in respect of the Bill and the International Criminal Court.
Indeed, it is in the best interests of our armed forces that the Bill is enacted. The Bill ensures that all the International Criminal Court crimes are also offences under British law and can be investigated and prosecuted by British authorities. Without the Bill, our forces personnel would be at greater risk of prosecution before the International Criminal Court.
Nor does the creation of an international criminal court change the law under which our armed forces operate. The definitions of war crimes in the statute are already part of the well-established law of armed conflict. They are already binding on our armed forces and form part of the basic training of every British officer. Indeed, most of the wording on the crimes committed during combat is wording drawn from the Geneva Convention Acts 1957 and 1995, both of which were brought to Parliament by a Conservative Government.
I regret that the United States does not yet feel able to ratify a statute which it has signed. I fully appreciate the importance to the United States of the liberty and safety of its personnel. Britain also has many service personnel on duty abroad and, for the reasons I have given, we are confident that they are not at risk from mischievous prosecution.
We will continue, as a friend and ally, to encourage the United States to join the International Criminal Court because it will give us a mechanism to address the rogue states which concern us both. The most powerful argument is always by example and if we want to overcome the doubts within the United States, the best way to do so is to show our own confidence in the court by taking part in it.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Supposing, heaven forbid, that we or the United States were ever in a position where we had to use nuclear weapons. Who would take the decision as to whether that offended against the ICC statute?

Mr. Cook: I am happy to reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that matter was, indeed, debated in Rome. There is no offence within the Rome statute or before the International Criminal Court on the use of nuclear weapons per se, although the circumstances in which they are used are always a matter of judgment. However, that is a matter of judgment that any British Prime Minister or US President would have to exercise in the present state of international law. The statute does not make any change, nor is there any reference to nuclear weapons. The possession of nuclear weapons is not an offence.
We should ratify because the International Criminal Court will give practical expression to values and principles which I hope the whole House upholds: that

those who commit crime should not go unpunished and that justice should be available to the victim through legal process. Those are strong principles, but they also have a powerful practical effect.
The reason why we have laws against theft is not primarily to punish the thief but to deter them from committing the crime. Too much blood has been spilt in recent decades by dictators confident that they would never be held to account. From now on, totalitarian regimes will know that they can be held to account for crimes against humanity. They will be no more above the rule of law than Milosevic. If the International Criminal Court deters just a single future Pol Pot, it will have justified its creation.
The other reason why every civilised society insists that crime must be punished by the rule of law is to prevent the victims or their relatives from taking the law into their own hands. In my experience, one of the greatest problems in drawing conflicts to a close is the cycle of revenge killings that perpetuate ethnic hatred. That produces a psychology in which the other ethnic community is held collectively responsible for the individual guilt of any of its members. By placing criminal responsibility where it rightly belongs—on the head of the individual—the International Criminal Court will help us break the mentality of revenge killing. It will make an important contribution to the process of reconciliation, without which there is no secure peace.
These are powerful assets. They are why the International Criminal Court is supported both abroad and at home. Not a single one of the responses to the draft Bill opposed it in principle. I hope that the House will be able tonight to show the same unity in giving a warm welcome to a Bill which offers the hope of justice to the victims of oppression and which only dictators need fear.

Mr. Francis Maude: I agree with much of what the Foreign Secretary said, especially about the broad principles that inform the Bill. As I said when we briefly discussed the matter in the debate on the Queen's Speech in December, we support the Bill in principle. When the right hon. Gentleman first made a statement on the subject, we accepted that there was a case for establishing such a court. We expressed some initial concerns about the statute of Rome, many of which remain unresolved. We perceive some serious flaws in the Bill, but we are willing to work with the Government to resolve them, so that it reaches the statute book in a form that all will find acceptable.
We welcome, as everybody must, measures that will allow those who have committed crimes against humanity to be brought to book. That is clearly common ground. In the other place, the Bill received the constructive support of the Opposition, and we will take the same approach here. Where we agree with it, we will say so; where we believe it can be improved, we will seek to amend it, as we have already done; and where there are parts with which we simply do not agree, we will oppose them.
Let us consider the case for having a permanent International Criminal Court. The Foreign Secretary has rightly said that in recent years there have been continued breaches of international law of a most hideous kind, including ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia, genocide in Rwanda and mass murder in East Timor. Indeed,


activities currently being sponsored by the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe could well attract the attention of future tribunals.
It is right that, in respect of those appalling activities, ad hoc tribunals should be investigating and trying individuals—but that is happening in relation to only two of those theatres. That demonstrates the case for a permanent court. Thousands of refugees from the ethnic conflict in Rwanda have been murdered in recent years, but the mandate of the tribunal is limited to events that occurred in 1994. Crimes committed since then will not be covered by the ICC either, as its remit will not be retrospective.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not odd that someone who has been held responsible for at least half a million murders—I am referring to the person who ruled Uganda until it was liberated in the late 1970s—lives peacefully in Saudi Arabia, occasionally giving press conferences when he is allowed to do so, and the international community shows not the slightest concern about his not being brought to justice?

Mr. Maude: That is a fair point. Such instances make the case for having a permanent International Criminal Court. I do not know off hand whether Saudi Arabia has signed and ratified the Rome statute. If so, the case that the hon. Gentleman cites would be capable of remedy. If not—and the reality is that the court will not have universal coverage for some time to come—it will remain unresolved.

Mr. Mike Gapes: One reason why there will not be universal coverage is the attitude of the United States Administration. Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to urge that Administration, and the Senate, to ratify the treaty?

Mr. Maude: I will come to the American position in a while and deal explicitly with that point.
Against the clear deficiencies of the—currently two—ad hoc tribunals, we must balance the questioned effectiveness of the International Criminal Court. Serious commentators have questioned its effectiveness, and we believe that there are many deficiencies in the Bill. The case for a permanent court is founded on deterrence. It is said that the bad people who today think that they will get away with crimes against humanity will think again if they know that there is a court in permanent session with powers to pursue them wherever they are. In some cases, that may well be so, but it is not a panacea, any more than the existence of national courts guarantees that no one will commit murder in their own jurisdiction.
We must acknowledge the advantages of ad hoc tribunals, which can be flexible and are focused on a specific area, but on balance we accept that the argument for a properly working International Criminal Court, which will give a consistent form of justice, is persuasive.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is familiar with the requirement of British law that a person may not be committed for trial unless there is prima facie evidence to support the accusation. It is clear that under the Rome

statute a person can be sent for trial abroad in the absence of any test of whether there is such prima facie evidence. That makes me uneasy, and I would be grateful for my right hon. Friend's views on it.

Mr. Maude: My right hon. and learned Friend is a practising lawyer, whereas I am a long-retired one: I have put my past behind me. As I understand it, the provision for a pre-trial panel of judges—

Mr. Hogg: It is outside our jurisdiction.

Mr. Maude: That is an absolutely fair point. No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend will want to be on the Committee that considers the Bill and pursue these matters in detail.
Our serious concerns about the detailed provisions lie not with the concept of a permanent court but with the Bill as it stands. As I understand it, 139 countries have signed the statute and 29 have ratified it. As the Foreign Secretary said, the court will not be established until 60 of the signatories have ratified. There is of course a big difference between signing and ratifying. Signing is merely an expression of some intention to ratify.
This is an important consideration in the light of the question asked by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) about the United States. States that had not signed the treaty by the end of last year would have been excluded from detailed negotiation of the Rome statute in years to come. That is explicitly why America and Israel signed up at the last minute, on 31 December 2000.
We are still a long way short of the number of ratifications needed to set up the court. Australia signed up but has not yet even begun to introduce a Bill to ratify. Japan has not even signed. Israel signed but laid down many conditions.

Mr. Robin Cook: I want to put in a good word for Japan and one or two other countries that the right hon. Gentleman has cited. Japan has not signed because it has no technical legal position to do so: it can only accede. It intends to accede, and will effectively sign and ratify at the same time. There is no lack of intention to join.

Mr. Maude: I hear what the Foreign Secretary says.
The United States has signed but has said explicitly that the statute in its current form should not be ratified. When, on the last possible day to allow the United States to remain in the negotiation process, President Clinton signed the Rome statute, he said:
In signing, however, we are not abandoning our concerns about significant flaws in the treaty. In particular, we are concerned that when the court comes into existence, it will not only exercise authority over personnel of states that have ratified the treaty, but also claim jurisdiction over personnel of states that have not …
The United States should have the chance to observe and assess the functioning of the court, over time, before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction.
Given these concerns, I will not, and do not recommend that my successor submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied.
There is, therefore, a real concern in America.
The Foreign Secretary referred to several matters that have caused concern to commentators; he said that they were the same as those relating to the statute that set up


the ad hoc tribunals, especially the international criminal tribunal in respect of Yugoslavia. However, although it is one thing to agree to provisions that apply only to an ad hoc tribunal for a particular area, which one hopes is time limited and does not involve embedding such provisions in domestic law, it is another thing to agree to provisions that are to be embedded in domestic law in such a way as to be avowedly difficult to amend, because the law would have to reflect internationally negotiated matters under an international treaty.

Mr. Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman well describes the American wish to be part of the negotiations but not of the process. Will he go further and say that the United States ought to be part of the whole process and should not be allowed to exempt itself from it? If the US were allowed to get away with that, it would undermine the process.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman's use of language is somewhat puzzling; he refers to the US being "allowed to get away with it" and says that it should not be permitted to be exempt from the process. America is a grown-up country that can make its own decisions. If a country as committed to law and freedom as the United States is concerned that the process has what President Clinton—not some republican President—describes as "significant flaws", we at least owe the Americans the courtesy of listening to what they have to say, rather than asking questions from the comfort of Britain. Many more American than British citizens are committed overseas in their armed forces, so we should be ready to listen to their concerns.

Mr. John Bercow: Although, as my right hon. Friend pointed out a moment ago, Israel is only a relatively recent signatory, on account of reservations that it entirely legitimately expressed at the 1998 Rome conference, will he confirm that the historical record shows that Israel has been an enthusiast for the concept of the ICC since the early 1950s?

Mr. Maude: I think that is correct. Israel's concerns—like those of the Opposition—do not flow from opposition to the concept of an international criminal court, but from anxiety as to how it will work in effect and about the dangers that could arise.

Mr. Tony Worthington: The right hon. Gentleman criticised the language of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), but my hon. Friend's question was a good one. Do Her Majesty's Opposition urge the United States Government to overcome their difficulties and sign up to this law?

Mr. Maude: Rather than urge the US Government to sign up to something about which they have—as President Clinton put it—"fundamental concerns", I would urge them to engage in the negotiating process as their signature allows them to do, in order to negotiate, over time, changes that would remove their concerns. Many of the concerns expressed by US Administrations of both colours are similar to those of the Opposition and are, I suspect, shared by countries such as Israel.

Mr. Mackinlay: What are they?

Mr. Maude: I am coming to that; the hon. Gentleman leads me neatly to my next point. The right course is to

address those concerns so that the International Criminal Court will be set up in such a way that we are all comfortable with it.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again on that point. Surely it is a bit off that the United States signs up to the principle in order to be part of the negotiations, but on the penultimate day the President announces that he has not the slightest intention of submitting the matter to the Congress or the Senate, and urges his successor to follow the same course. There will be a sword hanging over the whole process for ever—will the US sign up or not? If everyone says that they want the criminal court process to work effectively, should not all nations be persuaded to sign up to it? Would it not help if the House sent out the message that we think the United States ought to sign up to and ratify the statute?

Mr. Maude: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman should be haranguing me; he should take the matter up with the Prime Minister, who could put it to President Clinton. It was President Clinton who expressed concerns.
The hon. Member for Islington, North might like to be reminded of the words of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). We wish the hon. Gentleman well in his sad illness and hope that he will recover quickly. The Minister said:
The Americans have said that they would like to move towards signing the statute, and we hope that a way can be found to address their concerns."—[Official Report, 27 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 947.]
Rather unusually, I find myself in agreement with the Minister. We, too, hope that a way can be found to address American concerns. Those concerns exist and we should not try to deny—

Mr. Mackinlay: What are they?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman keeps asking that question. If I had not given way to so many of his hon. Friends, I should have answered it. I shall now do so.
Our first concern is that we have not been told what declarations—if any—will be entered into by the Government. It is odd that we are being invited by the Foreign Secretary to give a Second Reading to a Bill that will give effect to the statute of Rome when the Government have not actually got around to telling Parliament what declarations they will make. The Foreign Secretary says that, of course, the declarations are of no legal effect at all. In that case, it is odd that so many countries have entered into them, describing them as interpretative declarations that will have an impact on domestic law. We are dealing with domestic legislation, not just international law. Such declarations will have an impact on how the Bill and the statute of Rome are interpreted by our domestic courts. There will be an effect on domestic law.
It is regrettable that the Bill has already gone through all its stages in the other place and we have reached Second Reading in this place, yet we have still not been told by the Foreign Secretary what declarations the Government propose to enter. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the Foreign Secretary has not taken this opportunity to let the House into some of his thinking on


the subject. Does he expect that the Government will want to enter into any declarations at all? If they do not want to do so, that is a perfectly honourable position. However, it would be nice to know; that would make a difference as to how the House may feel about the Bill. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to intervene to let the House into his ruminations on the subject. He was somewhat delphic about it earlier.

Mr. Cook: I am happy to stand by what I have already said. A declaration has no legal effect. On the general principle, we do not want to encourage international treaties that are made into a Christmas tree, hung with declarations, by those who accede to them. The great majority of countries which have signed up have made no such declarations. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were many such countries, but at present there are two. One of them is France, which made an interpretative statement; the other is New Zealand, which made a statement rejecting the French statement. In effect, the right hon. Gentleman asks us to accede to the French declaration.

Mr. Maude: The Foreign Secretary seems misinformed. My understanding is that Austria, Belgium, Belize, Finland, France, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and Spain have all entered declarations to the statute—[Interruption.] They may be relatively minor declarations; nevertheless all those countries have entered them.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Perhaps it would help if the right hon. Gentleman could move from a hypothetical discussion to a real one and suggest the type of declaration that the UK might use. For example, Israel, among others, made the declaration that politically motivated accusations could not entertained. Does he suggest that we should echo that declaration? Could he tell us what "politically motivated" might mean and who would judge what it is?

Mr. Maude: I do not advocate such a declaration. I shall come to the specific declaration that I advocate when I deal with the main amendments that we want to make to the Bill.
I think I can take it from what the Foreign Secretary says that he proposes that the Government will not enter any declarations.

Mr. Cook: We have none in mind.

Mr. Maude: We can take that as a definitive statement that the Government expect the Rome statute to remain without reservations, which is effectively what declarations are. It is helpful to have that confirmed. I think that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) wanted to intervene.

Mr. Mackinlay: We want to know what the right hon. Gentleman's concerns are.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman has contained his curiosity very well.

Mr. Cook: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will clarify the number of declarations. As I said,

only two countries have made a statement that queries the legal effect of the statute. The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that other countries have made declarations; for example, the Austrian declaration to which he referred states that any documents making a request of the Government of Austria shall be in German. I would not rule out the possibility of our making such a declaration, but it has nothing to do with the terms of the statute.

Mr. Maude: To satisfy the curiosity of the hon. Member for Thurrock, I shall move on to our second concern, which is more specific but very deep, and I suspect that it lies behind the concerns of the United States Administration. I refer to the position of the armed forces.
We believe that the Bill does not give our armed forces the protection that they need. War by its very nature is chaotic. There are many examples of events in war in which dutiful, decent officers and men obeyed orders that unintentionally led to the loss of civilian life. There were tragic examples of that during the Kosovo bombings, when bombing orders led to the deaths of civilians. There was also the question of whether it was right to offer protection to the people of Kosovo while refusing to allow allied planes to fly at lower altitudes, which might have reduced the risk to civilians.
Of course, that does not mean that it would be right to accuse the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister of being war criminals, as some in Serbia have argued. Nor, of course, does it mean that Lady Thatcher was a war criminal when she ordered the retaking of the Falklands. More importantly, perhaps, it does not mean that the pilots who flew on the missions were guilty of war crimes. It would be wrong, and the British people believe that it would be wrong, if British troops were subjected to politically motivated prosecutions or threats of prosecution for carrying out their duties in distant foreign lands. Yet there is a belief that such a threat exists.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who represent military constituencies, as he knows I do, share the concerns expressed by the Chief of the Defence Staff when he gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill? He made it clear that although he had been advised that prosecution of a junior officer was unlikely, he could not feel that the word "unlikely" filled him with much confidence. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Chief of the Defence Staff, as I do?

Mr. Maude: I am coming to precisely that point, which is of great importance. The Foreign Secretary and other Ministers can offer all the bland reassurances that we have heard from them, but the reality is that soldiers, sailors and airmen will take seriously the doubts expressed by their military leaders and will, frankly, find them more persuasive than the reassurances of politicians of any colour. These are not fanciful concerns, but Ministers have sought glibly to brush them aside, giving bland reassurances that have failed to allay them.

Mr. Cash: Clause 66, which deals with the mental element or test that I mentioned earlier, says:
In interpreting and applying the provisions … the court shall take into account any relevant judgment or decision of the ICC.


The number of those judgments and decisions will obviously grow in time. The clause continues:
Account may also be taken of any other relevant international jurisprudence.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to probe that point extremely carefully as the Bill proceeds through the House, because that provision will probably be incompatible with the sort of mens rea test that we are used to in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Maude: We have specific concerns about the mental intent element allowed for in the statute for some of the offences. If my hon. Friend wants to pursue those points later in the debate or in Committee, he will be doing the House a service.
On our specific concerns about the armed forces, it is helpful to consider recent exchanges. On 7 March, the former NATO commander Admiral Eberle said:
It is vital that commanders in the field should not be put in a position where they are concerned as to what is right and what is wrong at the expense of risking their own lives and those of the men they command.
On the same day, two daily newspapers, The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian, carried on their front pages the concerns of several senior military officers about the Bill. The Daily Telegraph reported the concerns of senior officers, who said that
commanders faced either being accused of war crimes or changing the rules of engagement to the point where the enemy could be certain of 'getting his strike in first'.
It went to on to say:
The International Criminal Court Bill adds to concerns expressed by the new Chief of Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce—and his predecessor, Gen Sir Charles Guthrie—that litigation … will diminish capability.
The Guardian reported other officers' concerns, saying:
'Given wrong rules of engagement [British commanders] could find themselves liable to prosecution as war criminals', a senior defence source warned yesterday. He added that ministers were 'very aware' of such a prospect. He said he was concerned in particular about conflicts and operations, short of a full-scale war, even—paradoxically—where British forces were engaged in support of the UN. Another senior defence source said that future rules of engagement could, for instance, prevent a British warship from attacking a hostile vessel until it was too late.
On Report in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Howell read out some of those reports and voiced the concerns of senior members of the armed forces about the Bill. He said:
Legitimate anxieties have been aired recently in the newspapers by members of the Armed Forces."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 347.]
The Government's response was very interesting. Baroness Scotland, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said:
Although there has been much vaunting in the press of the concerns of the Armed Forces, the MoD has been assiduous in its duties—it has crawled all over the Rome Statute and the Bill and it is content, as are the higher echelons of each of the services.
It is important to note that those words were spoken on 8 March. Baroness Scotland continued:
They said that they are satisfied that the legislation should not lay the Armed Forces open to prosecution when they are undertaking their legitimate duties as directed by a democratically elected

government. We all know that we can get excited about press stories and how much reliance we put on statements that we read."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 433.]

Mr. Desmond Browne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maude: I shall finish this point first, because it is central to the matter.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said, the concerns had been expressed by Admiral Boyce, the recently appointed Chief of Defence Staff, in evidence to a Committee of the House only two days before Baroness Scotland was speaking. The transcript of his remarks only became available some little time later. The House should pay attention to what he said. He was asked about concerns relating to the Bill, and he said:
I think we need to be very careful indeed that when the Bill is taken through Parliament, we do not put ourselves in a situation where a junior person carrying out orders which he believes to be entirely proper can subsequently find himself in front of the International Criminal Court. So far I have been told that this is unlikely to happen.
Probed a little further, he said:
I cannot say"—

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): rose—

Mr. Maude: I shall finish the sentence if the Minister wants me to, because the national court would have the opportunity to investigate the case if it were pointed in that direction by the ICC. That is simply an explanation, and I accept that it may be highly unlikely that that eventuality would occur, but when the Chief of the Defence Staff was probed a little further on whether that assurance gave him sufficient comfort, he said:
I cannot say that 'unlikely' fills me with huge confidence. I would be much happier with a completely unequivocal statement, but I guess that is probably the best I will get.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Although my right hon. Friend has drawn to the House's attention the clear reservations of the Chief of the Defence Staff, he will have noted that the Foreign Secretary, in answer to my earlier intervention, said that he had received no representations from the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Secretary of State had received no representations.

Mr. Howarth: We are getting to the truth that the Secretary of State for Defence had received no representations. Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is likely, therefore, that the chiefs of staff have not been talking to the Secretary of State for Defence about those very serious reservations?

Mr. Maude: If the Secretary of State for Defence says that he received no representations at any stage, we of course accept that. Perhaps the serious concerns that the Chief of the Defence Staff expressed to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill were completely spontaneous. Perhaps he had not thought about such


matters before, and it was the first time that they had been discussed, but somehow we all find that a tiny bit unlikely.

Dr. Starkey: rose—

Mr. Maude: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, but then I want to make progress because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.

Dr. Starkey: I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and I am in some difficulty. Will he confirm that, when members of our armed forces operate abroad, they have a code of conduct appropriate to the operation that they are undertaking, which sets out very clearly, essentially, what they are allowed and not allowed to do under international law in that situation, and that ordinary soldiers know full well that if they break those rules of engagement, they will be held to account? Will he explain why that is so very different from what he suggests?

Mr. Maude: If the hon. Lady does not understand that there is a real difference in the effect on the mind between those who frequently make instant decisions facing the prospect of disciplinary proceedings in the armed forces, or even prosecution, possibly by a domestic court, and a process that is international in character and out of the control of those who command the armed forces nationally, she should try talking to some of the officers. Indeed, she might like to talk to Admiral Boyce, just appointed by the Government as Chief of the Defence Staff, who is expressing precisely those concerns.

Mr. Browne: rose—

Mr. Maude: I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman presses me to do so, but I am keen to make progress.

Mr. Browne: I must press the right hon. Gentleman to give way. I am grateful to him for giving way, and I am listening very carefully to what he says. I understand the distinction that he makes between the temporal nature of the Yugoslav tribunal and the International Criminal Court, and it is an important distinction to make. However, the points of principle—which he seems to share, although he has not actually said so—in relation to the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the ICC are identical. His Government made our soldiers subject to that tribunal, which takes precedence over our national courts and is not complementary to them. Did he have those concerns when he, as a member of that Government, made our soldiers subject to that tribunal?

Mr. Maude: To be precise, I was not a member of the Government; nor was I a Member of Parliament at the time. The hon. Gentleman makes the point in the opening part of his intervention that an ad hoc tribunal, which is limited in area and in time, deserves different consideration. The statute relating to the international criminal tribunal for Yugoslavia was not embedded into domestic law, but if the ICC statute were embedded into domestic law, it would be a different matter.

Mr. Browne: What about the principle?

Mr. Maude: Those concerns are not absolute ones of principle; they have a practical effect. If a senior officer

of the British armed forces says that they are real concerns, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Government Benches should at least do him, and our armed forces, the courtesy of taking those concerns seriously. That is what we shall do, which is why we shall probe and press those matters as the Bill passes through the House.
Will the Foreign Secretary categorically tell the House today that Admiral Boyce's concerns have now been completely met and that, if Admiral Boyce were to be interviewed by the Select Committee once again, he would say that he has now been given "a completely unequivocal statement"? Will the Foreign Secretary respond?

Mr. Robin Cook: I am very happy to respond to the right hon. Gentleman because it gives me the opportunity to repeat a passage of my speech that he obviously did not fully absorb when I delivered it. I told the House that British service personnel will never be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court because any bona fide allegation will be pursued by the British authorities. That is certainly unequivocal. No one could point to anything in that statement that lacks conviction; it is a comprehensive statement.
I return to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) asked the right hon. Gentleman. He is mistaken about the war crimes tribunal. As far as I am aware, no time limit has been set for that tribunal; it can last for ever. It is confined only in its geographical coverage. That coverage contains several thousand British soldiers, and it did when the right hon. Gentleman's Government applied the war crimes tribunal to that region. Why is it wrong for us to act on the same principles on which they acted, when we have a cover that they did not provide for British troops—if they are tried before a British court, the international court does not apply. That was not the case when the Conservative Government adopted the war crimes tribunal. They did not give British personnel the safeguards that we are giving them.

Mr. Maude: The Foreign Secretary asserts that British armed forces personnel will never be tried for the reasons that he sets out, but he put that differently earlier. I was listening to his speech, and he invited the House to put its faith in the robustness of the British legal system, saying that the ICC would, as a matter of automatic trust, accept that such matters had been fully investigated and pursued domestically, so that, in practical terms, there could be no question of their being pursued by the ICC. With respect, that is not the same as providing a cast-iron guarantee, such as that sought by Admiral Boyce, that that will not arise. It is still in the category of being highly unlikely.
If the Foreign Secretary is willing to make the robust assertion that no armed forces personnel can be pursued in the ICC in that way, perhaps he would like to tell that to the very active QC, Geoffrey Robertson, who pursues such matters vigorously and has said:
We have to be prepared, in theory"—
I accept that he said, "in theory"—
to have our soldiers tried


by the ICC. That is the point. Of course it is highly unlikely, in theory, that that will happen, but if the Foreign Secretary wants to tell the House that it will be impossible for British armed forces to be pursued in that way, let him agree to amendments that would make it impossible. If he is so confident, let him amend the Bill to make it impossible. That will provide the sort of reassurances sought by the senior officers whose concerns have been clearly articulated.

Mr. Brazier: My right hon. Friend makes a very powerful case. Will he make it clear to the House that if we find the Government unwilling to accept the amendments that he will move in Committee, and if the Third Reading debate takes place before the election, we shall feel obliged to vote against the Bill on Third Reading?

Mr. Maude: I am coming on to that.

Mr. Worthington: rose—

Dr. Starkey: rose—

Mr. Maude: I shall not give way again because I have given way a great deal. I have been speaking for quite some time, and many hon. Members wish to contribute to this important debate.
I shall deal with the four specific amendments with which we are particularly concerned. They are necessary for the Bill to become acceptable, and we shall want to vote against the Bill's Third Reading if they are not accepted.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Excellent. Tell the court's supporters.

Mr. Maude: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman says "Excellent". That shows that, if anyone is playing political games, it is not Conservative Members. We have repeatedly and consistently said that we are in favour of the proposal, but it is spectacularly helpful of the hon. Gentleman to point out to the House and to the public that one party—the Labour party—is relentlessly playing electoral politics with the issue. We have taken a consistent and principled stance, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Worthington: rose—

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Maude: No, I shall not give way. I have given way a great deal and I now wish to make progress.
Lest it be thought that it is only the Conservatives who have expressed concerns, Labour Members might like to reflect on the view of Lord Shore of Stepney. He said:
We are putting ourselves unnecessarily in the dock by accepting a number of these foolishly agreed clauses in the convention."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 2001; Vol. 623, c. 360.]

Mr. Robin Cook: rose—

Mr. Maude: Before I deal briefly with the amendments that have to be made, I shall give way to the Foreign Secretary. I must then make progress.

Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to put right the quote that he attributed to Geoffrey Robertson, whom I know well. The right hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Robertson as saying:
We have to be prepared, in theory, to have our soldiers tried".
The right hon. Gentleman should share with the House the full quote. Mr. Robertson, in fact, said:
It is entirely fanciful to imagine that a Briton against whom there is evidence of war crimes would not be prosecuted under our own military procedures. We have to be prepared, in theory, to have our soldiers tried, but"—
this is what he added—
in practice, it will never happen.
The right hon. Gentleman did not give us that bit.

Mr. Maude: If the Foreign Secretary is absolutely confident that that will never happen, let him agree to amendments to the Bill that will guarantee that it will never happen. If he agrees that, he will have our support. As it is, we have relayed the concerns felt by those who take responsibility for the command of the armed forces, and they have not been reassured. If the Foreign Secretary agrees to our amendments, we will be willing to support the Bill on Third Reading.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I hope that the Foreign Secretary will listen to this point. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mark Littman QC, who is a highly respected international lawyer, took a view that is worthy of serious respect, even though I do not agree with it? He took the view that the Government acted unlawfully in the bombing of the former Yugoslavia—

Mr. MacShane: Him and other loonies.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Mr. Littman took the view that the Government acted unlawfully in the bombing of the former Yugoslavia and Belgrade in the circumstances that arose over Kosovo. If the international prosecutor took that view, what would prevent members of the Government—

Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend, but is it in order for an hon. Member to call another hon. Member a loony?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): That is not the kind of language that one would expect from hon. Members.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Although I hope to be called to speak, I was asking my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) a question. A serious lawyer suggests that the British and United States Governments acted contrary to international law and that what they did might have been a war crime because quite a lot of civilians were killed. Could the Government have been prosecuted? We need an answer to that question before we drive the Bill through.

Mr. Maude: It is extremely revealing that the Foreign Secretary introduced the Bill in a portentous and


high-minded way. Since then, however, we have been bombarded with fatuous interventions from a sedentary position from his Parliamentary Private Secretary.

Mr. MacShane: I am not the PPS.

Mr. Maude: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is even lowlier than that. He has derided the real concerns that many serious people—much more serious than him—have about this important Bill. Others outside will have noted the extraordinary spirit of levity with which he has approached the debate.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) asks an important question and it deserves an answer from the Government. I hope that Ministers will respond properly to that concern later.

Mr. Mackinlay: rose—

Mr. Maude: No, I shall not give way, even though it is tempting to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I shall proceed to the conclusion of my speech.
We believe that four amendments must be made to the Bill. First, there should be a seven-year opt-out as the French have taken and as is provided for under article 124 of the Rome statute. When it comes to the robust defence of the national interest, perhaps we sometimes have something to learn from the French. They deliberately took that option to ensure that there would be no hazard to their armed forces.
Secondly, the Secretary of State should have discretion over the issuing of warrants from the ICC. That could be accomplished by the Government making the appropriate interpretative declaration to the statute. It is important to ensure that a vindictive prosecution pursued for the settling of political scores cannot be undertaken in that way.
Thirdly, the legal test for what a military commander "should have known"—as set out in clause 65—needs revising. It is extremely subjective and that gives most concern in relation to the protection of our armed forces. When the issue was raised in the other place, we were told that the Bill must reflect the exact words of the statute of Rome, but that cannot be correct. In relation to this specific provision, the Canadian Government and Parliament have a different form of wording, which imposes a tougher test—a higher test for the mental element, which is one of the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) mentioned. They talk about a test of criminal negligence and about a commander who would be criminally negligent if he did not know the facts that put civilians at risk.
Fourthly, the Government should amend the Bill to ensure that, if the statute is ratified, the declarations that the Government intend to make—if they make any—should be laid before both Houses of Parliament. I understand that there is the possibility that declarations and subsequent renegotiations may create new criminal offences in domestic law and it is right that those should be properly debated by the House before they pass into our law.
That is the very minimum that must be put into the Bill to protect our armed forces from vexatious and malicious prosecutions by rogue states. Let us be under no illusion about that. Let us remind ourselves of the immense power that the court will have and that it needs to have if it is to pursue the high objectives that have been claimed for it.
We support the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, but, as I have said, for us to be able to support it on Third Reading, the Government will need to show a great deal more flexibility and a great deal more readiness to meet the proper concerns that many people have raised than they have done hitherto. We look forward to that happening in Committee.

Mr. Tony Worthington: I am astonished and delighted to be called so early in the debate; I have just finished writing my speech.
We have just listened to a strange contribution. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said that he supported the Bill, without showing the slightest enthusiasm for it. Every difficulty was considered in the context of an Army commander. This Bill is of great importance and we should greet it with enthusiasm.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his team. I am certain that our presence at the Rome conference and our contribution towards the Rome statute were important factors in reaching this solution. I doubt whether the outcome would have been the same under the right hon. Member for Horsham.
The Bill is welcome. Many of our predecessors here and in the other place have been persistent in their efforts to reach this day. A gap in our justice system is gradually being filled—we are trying to end the cliché that it is easy for the greatest mass murderers to get away with their crimes when single murderers are convicted. I like what Kofi Annan said about people all over the world wanting to know that humanity can strike back. Tyrants and demagogues have unacceptably exerted their power without running the slightest risk that they might have to face up to justice. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Bill. We have to accept that it is not perfect. It will not create a perfect International Criminal Court, but it is crucial that we do not allow the best to drive out the good. If we do not embrace the Bill, we will not get an ICC. It is an important step.
Other significant improvements in recent years include the two tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Their establishment is a great achievement, and the previous Government must take some credit for that. Offenders are appearing before them and being convicted. They are powerful examples of international co-operation. I could not believe it when the Conservatives said that they want to set up the ICC, but only if it does not apply to us. They do not want anyone from Britain to be subject to its control. We cannot give that unconditional undertaking. We have to hope that no one from Britain will be involved in it—we can ensure that that happens by investigating and prosecuting in our courts.

Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman probably knows that I have always been sympathetic to the principle behind the Bill. However, one matter puzzles me. What happens if a British service man is prosecuted and acquitted in this country, but the ICC prosecutor is


not satisfied with that result? Will he be able to draw the service man into the process, or is he safe from such prosecution?

Mr. Worthington: That is an important question, which the hon. Gentleman asks with respect. He wants to know that people will not be subject to vexatious inquiry. I am satisfied from what I have read that if we go about an investigation in good faith, no individual has the power to take further action. Any additional inquiry—never mind a prosecution—would be subject to a court of judges. Those safeguards were negotiated in Rome.
We must make progress and it is only by establishing the ICC that we will get the procedures right. We will not do that if we stand outside the process. I had no great hopes of satisfactory prosecutions in the two tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. However, they are an inspiration to us, as was the Scottish prosecution of the Lockerbie incident. People who would not otherwise have been prosecuted for a mass murder have, because of international co-operation, been convicted. I recently returned from a visit to Cambodia with the International Development Committee, and I am pleased to hear that steps are being taken to establish an international court to prosecute those who committed the atrocities under Pol Pot. That is also an inspiration. Such actions mark the way forward.
The way to make progress and to get the answers that we want is by making an enthusiastic commitment to the cause rather than by doing what the Conservatives suggest. The major value of the ICC is its preventive or deterrent effect. We hope that people will be deterred by the knowledge that their crimes will be punished. Indeed, the Conservatives have always argued about the power of deterrence for domestic crime. If it works in a national context, it should work in an international setting.
I am enthusiastic about the Bill, and my comments must be taken in that light. I should like retrospection explained in more detail. Why will the ICC consider only offences that occur once it has been established? Idi Amin was mentioned; I am puzzled as to why his crimes will not be subject to the ICC. I accept the principle of retrospection if an act was not a crime when it was committed and the person involved did not know that he was breaking the law. However, I find it difficult to accept that principle if people are mass murderers and criminals in many other ways. Why is the ICC not a legitimate technique to bring them to justice? Why will they not be subject to it?
The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) recently visited Sierra Leone, where he will have seen the consequences of heinous crimes against humanity. It is unacceptable that it is not possible to bring Foday Sankoh's followers to justice for their crimes against the children of Sierra Leone. Those were crimes any time, any place. I am puzzled that people cannot be prosecuted because the law cannot be applied retrospectively. Perhaps I have not read enough about it, but I think that others will wonder why the criminality of Idi Amin and Foday Sankoh are not subject to the ICC.
The Act and the court will be imperfect. However, we must press on. One major imperfection is that different states will not be equal before the law. The countries that are currently subject to international action are Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. They are not big, powerful

countries. The people who will be prosecuted are not likely to be on the winning side in a dispute. It will not enhance the court's legitimacy if the only people prosecuted are small fry and losers. Some actions, such as those by Russia in Chechnya, have been criticised. The actions of the Chinese in Tiananmen square have been criticised, and in some countries, the scale of the bombing of civilians would constitute a war crime. However, powerful countries such as America would not be prosecuted for them.
The court's partiality is therefore a huge imperfection, but we gain more by establishing an International Criminal Court than by delaying. Its existence would have helped us with the problems that President Pinochet posed. Fifty or 60 years ago, establishing the Nuremberg trials was right; so is setting up the International Criminal Court.
We must begin by reducing the problems. The court is a weapon against wickedness, not the solution. We must build up a culture of justice with which to replace the current culture of immunity. The establishment of the Yugoslav tribunal must give Milosevic some palpitations. Now that the rotten core has fallen, it will not be long before Mladic and Karadzic are taken, too.
The imperfections are substantial, and one of the major problems is the attitude of the United States. The only good action that Clinton took in his last days in office was signing the relevant statute. However, there is no optimism that the new presidency will do anything other than run away from the International Criminal Court. American attitudes to international activity are a genuine problem. I hope that the Americans have been taken aback by the universal expressions of disgust about their attitude to Kyoto, but I doubt it. Their attitude to the International Criminal Court is also disturbing. Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary said:
American leadership in the world could be the first casualty of the Court".
What does that mean? Does he mean that leadership stems from activities of which the court would disapprove? Does he believe that the United States would be subject to vexatious complaints? The statute's framework provides protection against that. Rumsfeld's comments are so antagonistic that it is difficult to ascertain the progress that can be made. That seriously weakens the court.

Ann Clwyd: On this occasion, I want to defend the United States, which had an ambassador for war crimes; other countries should follow suit. One of his roles was negotiating an agreement with Cambodia, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and persuading that country to set up a war crimes tribunal there.
Secondly, the United States funds Indict, an organisation that I chair and that exists to bring Iraqi war criminals to justice. We have collected evidence—and continue to do so—that we have submitted to the Attorney-General for prosecutions that can take place in this country. The United States should be complimented on that.

Mr. Worthington: I compliment the United States on that, and I stress that there are many Americans whose internationalism hon. Members want to encourage. However, it would be wrong to deny that we were depressed by recent comments from the United States.
We must press ahead with the International Criminal Court. Who remembers who was President of the United States at the time of the Nuremberg trials? [HON. MEMBERS: "Truman."] I know that it was Truman, but his words at the time do not matter; the establishment of the Nuremberg trials matters. We must set up the International Criminal Court and thus establish a framework for the compliance of countries such as America and China, which are not currently involved in it.
I was pleased that the right hon. Member for Horsham said that he would approach the Committee stage constructively. I hope that that will happen. I recently endured the Committee stage of the International Development Bill. All hon. Members supported it and our Committee stage should therefore have been useful—but it was not.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): It is interesting to know that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that the Committee proceedings on the International Development Bill were useful. For hon. Members' information, five new clauses were not even debated because we ran out of time. I was not aware of any truly constructive contributions from Labour Members; Conservative Members made them all.

Mr. Worthington: If hon. Members examine the record of proceedings, they will realise that it is difficult to interrupt a monologue. We had to endure a monologue from the hon. Lady. Her approach was not constructive, and she gave us no opportunity to make suggestions.
I concede that there should be many opportunities to consider the details of the Bill and for Members of all parties to make constructive suggestions. If the hon. Lady leads for the Opposition in Committee, I hope that she will approach the Bill in that spirit. She will then realise that Labour Members can contribute constructively if they are allowed to do so.
We should greet this important measure enthusiastically. It is being introduced at the end of the Parliament, and I am proud of our achievement. Let us get the proceedings under way and then make the necessary improvements.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: My party supports the Bill warmly and unequivocally. I have long taken a great interest in the extension of the effectiveness of jurisdiction over crimes that are committed internationally. Within 12 months of becoming a Member of Parliament, I introduced a little-remembered measure, the Tokyo Convention Bill, to enable the then Labour Government to ratify that convention and thus deal with crimes, including hijacking committed on board aircraft. It is therefore satisfying not only that such a major and historic step forward in extending international criminal jurisdiction over war crimes was agreed in the 1998 statute of Rome, but that we are among the first to try to implement it.
I want briefly to mention the position of the United States, in which I have a peculiar personal interest. The United States has not always been reluctant to get involved in establishing an international criminal jurisdiction to deal with war crimes and crimes against

humanity. In the last years of the second world war, the American Administration took on Churchill as Prime Minister and Viscount Simon as Lord Chancellor, who sought to deal with the top Nazis by simply lining them up and shooting them as a political act. Led by John J. McLoy, who was assistant Secretary for War, and Judge Sam Rosenman, the American Government took the view that it was important to bring those criminals to justice. They argued intensively with the British Government for two years. It was not until the San Francisco conference that Anthony Eden was finally forced to agree. I have a particular interest in that, because my late American father-in-law, who was later the president of the American Law Institute, was the counsel to Jack McLoy, who came to this country and drew up the documents that were ultimately ratified in San Francisco.
I therefore ask the Americans to look to their history and see what an important role they played in establishing this approach to dealing with the scourge of the 20th century—the horrors of crimes committed in war, which have violated the Geneva conventions and whose perpetrators have not always been effectively brought to justice.
The American Administration—both the present Administration and that of President Clinton before it—have felt some inhibitions about the process—perhaps for political reasons, but also because Americans have been brought up in a climate of constitutionalism, which makes them keen to ensure that any steps they take do not result in a denial of due process to their own citizens. However, it has to be said that by taking their present stance on this matter, they have done little to protect American citizens—a point that has been well made by at least as many authoritative lawyers in the United States as have been cited on the other side of the argument by the official Opposition.
States that adhere to the statute of Rome will be at liberty to prosecute American citizens under their own domestic arrangements, whether or not the United States decides to adhere to the system. Indeed, if the United States does not adhere, under the terms of the statute it will be open to the International Criminal Court to prosecute American citizens who have committed international criminal offences. It is therefore hard to see the argument that lies behind the current American position.
I much prefer the argument deployed by the Foreign Secretary when he opened the debate: that by adhering to the system, ratifying the statute and enacting the provisions that incorporate into our domestic law crimes under the statute, we enable ourselves to deal with such matters within our own jurisdiction. That is the same broad principle that was cited in support of the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into our law. It is better to have rights secured by our domestic law, so that such crimes can be handled by our domestic courts—and it seems to me that that argument applies as much in the United States as it does in our own different constitutional situation. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the countries that have come together to draft the statute, with such regard to process, will create a system that offers less protection than the due process of law enjoyed by citizens of the United States within that country.


Surely this country is right to be among those that seek to bring the provisions into early effect. We must recognise that the great doubt that people in this country have had about the efficacy of international law has stemmed largely from an awareness of the impotence of international law in the face of the most monstrous crimes in history committed in the last century—its impotence to do more than denounce the offences, and its failure to bring to justice the Pol Pots, the Idi Amins, the Saddam Husseins and the others whose names will reverberate throughout history for the monstrosities that they have been guilty of perpetrating.
This development must be welcomed in broad terms, and it is right that the British Government should seek to lose no time in bringing it into operative effect. In passing, however, I would like to say a little about the process domestically. A number of people in both Houses of Parliament, including myself, have taken the view that Westminster's procedures for the scrutiny of treaties have been deficient. The speech by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) to some extent demonstrated the need for different procedures, because by using this adversarial forum he was able to make a number of assertions that would not stand up to the kind of scrutiny to which they ought to have been subjected before the Bill was brought before us.
If we had automatic pre-legislative scrutiny of treaties, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman would not have been able to cite The Daily Telegraph's unnamed authorities as evidence in support of his views. If Admiral Boyce, to whom he alluded, had raised a serious objection, it could have been scrutinised and argued about specifically in Committee.

Mr. Maude: I was not relying on the report in The Daily Telegraph; I was using it to show that when that remark was quoted, that was all the evidence that we had, because the transcript of the evidence given to the Committee was not available. The Minister in the other place brushed everything aside as mere reports, but it turned out that at the same time, the Chief of the Defence Staff had expressed serious concerns before a Committee of this House investigating another Bill. Despite that, Ministers were pooh-poohing such suggestions and saying, "There's nothing to worry about; the military are happy about this." That was simply not true.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is invalidating my point by referring to Admiral Boyce in that way. He may even be fortifying my case for better and more direct scrutiny of the concerns of such people. A remark made in that way, which was clearly not central to the considerations of the Committee in which it was made, was not capable of being examined or answered either by the members of the Committee or by the Government, who, if the military had general concerns, had no doubt considered such matters with them in the consultative process.

Mr. Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. Does he agree that one of the great problems is that not only does this House have no right to pre-scrutinise treaties, but it has no say whatever over

treaties, only over the consequential legislation? Does he not accept that that is a serious flaw in our democratic process?

Mr. Maclennan: I accept that. I do not argue against the idea that the treaty-making power—the prerogative power—goes effectively unscrutinised, save by the grace and favour of Her Majesty's Ministers. In a modern democracy, that seems wholly unsuitable.
I must acknowledge that there has been some modest movement in the right direction in the past year. In its second report of the Session 1999–2000, the Procedure Committee sought to ensure that if a treaty was laid under the Ponsonby rules, it would be referred to the appropriate Select Committee of the House—appropriate, that is, in the opinion of the Government. Twenty-one days were to be set aside to give consideration to the treaty. We have, therefore, made a modest step in the right direction, although I do not believe that it is nearly enough. I was sorry that the Liaison Committee in another place decided that, owing to resource constraints—which, of course, I understand—it would not at this time set up a comparable Committee, although there are certainly experts in matters such as these in the other place.
If we had had that kind of scrutiny, it would not have been possible for the Opposition to seek to throw dust in the jurymen's eyes in the way that they did, in the long and wholly unpersuasive speech by the right hon. Member for Horsham. He lost sight of the overall objective in raising his concerns in a rather non-specific way. Some of his points had already been answered by the Foreign Secretary. His concern about our military personnel being whisked off to the International Criminal Court by a prosecutor acting irrationally not only seemed fanciful but appear to have been provided for by the fact that the ICC could not proceed in such a case if the matter was being acted on in this country. Such circumstances would block the ICC taking any action.
I look forward to the Bill going into Committee, where I have no doubt that we shall hear in greater detail some of the arguments that have been deployed in rather general terms today. However, we should not allow such matters to deflect us from the substantial step forward that this provision represents for the international community. Many of the decisions taken in the work leading up to the agreement of the statute in 1998 were wise ones. They built on the substantive public international law that existed: it was not a legislative process in that sense.
The procedural arrangements, in whose establishment the British Government played a major part, seem calculated to give reassurance that, although there will be differences in the way in which we conduct criminal trials—there will be no guarantee of a jury, for example—the rule of law will operate. Extensive effectiveness will be achieved as a result of these measures.
This is one of the most important Bills that I have encountered in my 35 years in the House—I celebrated my anniversary on Saturday. In my youth, I was very idealistic about the extension of world peace through world law. I remember reading at that time a famous book by Emery Reeves, called "The Anatomy of Peace". Since then, I have felt more and more that that was a hopeless aspiration. The Bill to some extent rekindles the aspiration towards a deterrence to the kinds of acts that have scarred the previous century, and which I hope will be a diminishing experience in international society in the century in which we now live.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Before I come to the Second Reading of the Bill, I note that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) alluded to his 35 years in the House. I suspect that his speech might be his last substantive contribution in this Chamber, although perhaps not in this palace. I hope that he will be resurrected in the gentle pastures of another place. Despite the fact that he started out as a Labour Member of Parliament, and went to lead the Social Democratic party before becoming a Liberal Democrat, I would like to place it on record that, during the two Parliaments in which I have been in the House, he has been a Member for whom I have had admiration. I also appreciate his never-ceasing courtesy and friendship.
I welcome the Bill and recognise how important it is, but I am frustrated that it has taken so long to reach Second Reading. The Canadian Parliament secured Royal Assent for the equivalent legislation last June. I studied the Canadian legislation and introduced my own Bill, modelled on the Canadian law, some months ago. That process showed me that there was greater clarity in the Canadian law than there is in our Bill.
Before the Bill goes into Committee, perhaps the Minister will revisit the Canadian legislation. I shall give a small example of how it helps in terms of clarity and reassurance. Part of it states:
In proceedings for an offence under this Act the accused may rely on any justification, excuse or defence available under the laws of Canada or under international law at the time of the alleged offence or at the time of the proceedings.
We do not have a comparable clause, no doubt because our draftspersons considered it unnecessary. It is often useful to have such a declaration in a Bill, and a similar provision might have gone some way towards assuaging the concerns expressed by Her Majesty's Opposition.
This is a profoundly important occasion. If we look back over the past 100 years, we see that legislators here and in other democratic Parliaments have tried—they failed, but they tried—to build up, in a fragile way, some international jurisprudence and international tribunals to combat the appalling atrocities of genocide, war crimes and so on. In that context, reference was made to the Nuremberg trials.
I am something of an amateur student of the first world war, and it is interesting that the guiding light for the proposals that we are now discussing was one of the good aspects of the much-discredited treaty of Versailles, articles 228 to 230 of which provided for an international court to deal with war crimes. Eighty years ago next month, trials were opened in the Supreme Court at Leipzig, as a consequence of the treaty, to deal with war crimes. It is true that the trials took place under a German court, but the British team of observers gave them a clean bill of health.
I mention those trials not only for anecdotal reasons but because they were conducted domestically, and the international observers—including the British—thought that they were conducted fairly and appropriately. Our primary intention must be to ensure that the trials of those

who commit war crimes and atrocities are heard in domestic courts. That was achieved, to some extent, 80 years ago.
A significant British jurist who was part of our representation at Leipzig wrote:
'In my view the object of the War Criminals' Trials at Leipzig was to establish a principle, to put on record before history that might is not right, and that men whose sole conception of the duty they owe to their country is to inflict torture upon others, may be put on their trial. As a result of the Leipzig Trials the fact is now on record that German soldiers and sailors have been put into prison by their own countrymen, who acted through no slavish coercion by a successful enemy, but because their consciences were outraged by evidence which their honesty forced them to admit. History will pay far more attention to sentences on German soldiers and sailors of six or ten months' imprisonment, passed by a German Court, than it would to far longer sentences passed by 'military tribunals' of the 'Allied and Associated powers'.
That is a true principle and it should be our primary objective. Trials must take place in domestic courts, but we must have the international court as a safety net in case of failure so that despots and people who fail to recognise wrongdoing can be arraigned before the international community.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say and I derive from it the comforting thought that, possibly under the new court, we shall depart from the principle that war criminals are always thrown up by the losers, but seldom by the victors. Does he share my budding optimism?

Mr. Mackinlay: That is absolutely correct. It leads me, very appropriately, to a matter that the shadow Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary debated. With the greatest of courtesy, I think that both did not so much get it wrong as miss the point.
The shadow Foreign Secretary kept coaxing my right hon. Friend to give an undertaking to reassure those whom he described as our senior military officers—he did not name them—that British soldiers would never be brought before the court. I was somewhat disappointed that my right hon. Friend said that there is no need to make such a declaration as a codicil to our ratification, claiming that it simply would not happen. In a way, that is wrong and slightly foolish. It is wrong because, if we are confident about our position, we should ultimately be prepared to be tested by institutions by which we expect everyone else to abide.
I could cite recent cases, but that might create controversy, so I shall give two historical examples: the massacre at Amritsar, which most people recognise was wholly unjustified, was carried out on the orders of British officers, and no prosecution in the British courts followed the sacking of Cork city by Crown forces 80 years ago. If an international court or institution had existed then, it could have said to the United Kingdom Government, "You have failed, for political reasons, to recognise that Crown forces engaged in wrongdoing. If we have the opportunity, we shall arraign those responsible before the International Criminal Court."
Those examples show why the United States is unhappy about the court. The massacre at My Lai, in which Lieutenant Calley ordered and committed such atrocious murders, is within the memory of every Member


in the Chamber. Although he went through some form of trial in the United States following massive public pressure, it became a charade. We must recognise that even in what we consider to be proud democracies with good court structures, people sometimes fail for political reasons.
We can never say that we will always be able to do that which is right. Therefore, we should submit ourselves to the international court, recognising that, even in our case, politicians, generals or subordinate officers could be subject to it in extreme circumstances, and rightly so.

Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman takes considerable interest in the armed forces. When people put on the Queen's uniform, they accept obedience to their civilian masters. If someone is answerable to a British court martial, he is tried by his peers—people who understand the pressures that he was under. If he goes before a jury, he is tried by his civilian peers. The point about the international court is that legal specialists with no military experience will be able to second-guess a British legal investigative process that may have concluded that neither of those two forums would ever have convicted the man.

Mr. Mackinlay: The point is that the veracity of our courts martial system must be subject to a litmus test of fairness. If we have in place some pretty good ground rules for courts martial, the International Criminal Court will not come banging on the door of the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence, saying, "We want this officer." We would be able to show that matters were being thoroughly pursued and prosecuted and that appropriate sentences would be passed.

Mr. Blunt: That is an extremely important point. The hon. Gentleman refers to a test that must be satisfied and what he considers to be the entirely reasonable actions of our courts martial. He described as a charade the trial of the officer involved at My Lai. I am sure that that was not the view in the United States. Judges will be elected by a majority following a secret ballot of the states that are parties to the convention, and their view of what is a charade or a fair trial may be different from his.

Mr. Mackinlay: In the My Lai example, it is generally held that the court proceedings, the decisions and the executive action of the President of the United States were perverse: the President of the United States—under executive action, not judicial authority—allowed the guy to go home. Clearly, that would not be permissible, and the beauty of the ICC is that it would counteract the judgment of Presidents or Prime Ministers in acting so wrongly.
That leads me to my next point, which was not discussed by the shadow Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The historical importance of the legislation will relate not so much to the commander in the field as to Presidents, Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers and Defence Ministers, who will have to pay regard to proportionality. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) referred to the use of atomic weapons, but nothing will be changed by the measure. Surely we believe that regard should always be paid to proportionality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is not in his place, has been exercised about the Falklands conflict. I do not always agree with

either his historical analysis or his conclusions, but I remember him probing on an unanswered question. Had the aircraft carrier gone down in the South Atlantic, Prime Minister Thatcher would have faced political and military defeat and it has been suggested that using battlefield nuclear weapons on Punta Arenas against Argentina was at least contemplated. I do not want to debate whether that necessarily happened, but some good people think that the possibility was at least explored.
That is where the legislation is important. It will temper the ability of Prime Ministers to use weapons out of all proportion and scale to the situation to save their political bacon. Its long-term effect will be to make people exercise their political views much more cautiously when committing armed forces to conflict.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: If the Bill is enacted, might not a sword hang over a future British Prime Minister? Might not that Prime Minister hesitate before deploying weapons that could protect British troops' lives? Surely the first responsibility of Members of Parliament is to protect our troops, whom we send into battle on our behalf.

Mr. Mackinlay: That has always been so. At present, mercifully, our Governments—Labour and Conservative—have regard to the existing rules of war. If we took the hon. Gentleman's argument, if I can term it thus—he advanced it in the form of a question—to its logical conclusion, we would not agree to existing Geneva conventions and codes of war.
We are, after all, merely building on an arrangement that already exists. We are talking about something that is fragile and inadequate, but we are adding an extra building block to the conduct of international relations and the conduct of war, while reminding politicians and commanders that they must have regard to proportionality. Of course there will always be collateral damage—innocent people will be killed in any war—but politicians and commanders must have greater regard, or at least continuing regard, to balance.
I am surprised that one matter has not been raised—I shall raise it now. I recognise that no easy decisions were involved in the controversial area of the bombing of Dresden, and Nuremberg. Historians will debate the issues for decades. It could clearly be argued that there were military objectives for the bombing and overriding reasons for it to happen, and it is equally clear that many people take the opposite view, but I do not believe that the head of Bomber Command or Winston Churchill could or would have been brought before the international court, because it was obviously a grey area. We are talking about despots, who will use weapons of mass destruction—or genocide—without regard to what represents at least some semblance of justification in terms of the war objective.

Mr. Howarth: rose—

Mr. Blunt: rose—

Mr. Mackinlay: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) first, and then give way to his commander.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman says that he dismisses out of hand the idea that the court might have indicted Sir Arthur Harris or Winston Churchill: he says that it is


inconceivable that it would have done so in the circumstances. I put it to him, however, that he cannot give the House, our armed forces and the people of this country that absolute certainty, because the court will have a life and a momentum of its own.

Mr. Mackinlay: I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that if the had legislation existed, Bomber Harris, Winston Churchill and other commanders would simply have had to contemplate a bit earlier in order to feel confident that, if challenged, they could advance a justification for what had been a very painful decision. We are, as it were, cautioning politicians and commanders that they must take account of certain considerations.

Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mackinlay: Yes, but for the last time; otherwise I might tax the patience of the House, and I have one or two more things to say.

Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago "We are talking about despotic regimes." What he must consider, however, is not just Dresden as a matter of history, but Baghdad as a matter of current events. He must consider circumstances in which the United States and the United Kingdom are on their own in taking actions that will be judged by judges elected through a secret ballot of the majority of the states participating in the treaty.

Mr. Mackinlay: That is indeed how the court will be constituted, but I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider this: unfortunately, the rulers of even the regimes that he and I would consider to be despotic have considered themselves to be legitimate. If the big players such as the United Kingdom and France are not prepared ultimately to submit themselves to an international court, how on earth can we expect the baddies of this world to do so?
As in so many instances, we must say that we are confident enough about our rules for decision-making and our concept of justice to be prepared to submit ourselves to a judicial regime, so that we can exert leverage on regimes we do not like and cause them to submit themselves to this system, or—I shall return to this point—at least persuade them to hold courts in their own jurisdictions when there has been flagrant disregard of, for instance, the rules of war.
Clause 65 lays down explicitly the rules to which commanders must have regard. I expect that they appear in other statutes, but they are useful here as an aide-mémoire for politicians and commanders. The Secretary of State for Defence is not present, but if he were I would have a go at him. In the past year I asked a parliamentary question about Sierra Leone: I wanted to know how many irregulars had used United Nations uniforms or insignia to deceive the Sierra Leone forces or, indeed, British forces. The Secretary of State was very dismissive, as can be seen in Hansard, and I was a bit put out. I am pleased to note from article 8, on page 72, that making
improper use of a flag of truce, or of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury

is now considered to he a serious international offence. That is an important step forward: the provision will be on our statute, and enshrined in law.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Where is that?

Mr. Mackinlay: It is on page 72. I will show the hon. Gentleman where it is later.
Let me say something about a matter on which I intervened on the Foreign Secretary earlier. I understand that, under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the House accepted that there should be universal jurisdiction in respect of cases of torture, enabling United Kingdom authorities to feel the collars of those who might be transient—passing through; just touching the soil—to take them into custody and to prosecute them for torture. Regardless of whether such people are United Kingdom citizens and regardless of whether they are resident, the fact that they are within our jurisdiction enables us both to arrest and to prosecute them. We have not, however, applied the same test in this Bill, and I know that that was questioned by some noble Lords.
I think we should make it abundantly clear that if it is in our capacity to arrest anyone who is guilty of war crimes, genocide or the other matters to which the Bill relates, and to hand that person to our domestic courts where he or she could be tried under the Bill, we should do so. There should not be this blurred, vexatious appeal provision, which is open to misinterpretation—the test of whether such people are resident.

Mr. Worthington: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this issue. As he probably knows, the Canadians have used the test of presence in the country rather than residence. Would it have been possible to define Pinochet as a resident? He was certainly present. I think that we should explore the matter in Committee.

Mr. Mackinlay: I have probably missed the most obvious example. Pinochet was present in our country, but he was not necessarily resident according to United Kingdom case law. I hope that we will revisit the issue in Committee to make it watertight, and to ensure that we fulfil both the spirit and the letter of our obligations.
I am proud to have been involved in the debate. I think that when we look back on it in 20 or 25 years the workings of the International Criminal Court will still be embryonic, or at least in their infancy, but we may feel that this evening we took a great step forward that has been denied to other generations. We have tried to create an international criminal court, and to ensure that the despots and wicked people who have killed and maimed whole generations—sometimes whole nations—and have brought good people to war cannot feel that there is a hiding place for them anywhere in the globe.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to speak in the debate. The Bill has a noble objective. Every hon. Member would be anxious to see the all too many dictators, international war criminals and perpetrators of genocide brought to justice. In so far as the Bill facilitates that and achieves the bringing to justice of those whom we would all recognise as serious war criminals, it will have our support.


In raising a number of serious questions, I do not wish to resile from my support for that noble objective, but there are serious questions about a Bill that hands international jurisdiction to the world at large in circumstances where we who have very high standards and do everything to maintain them—even if we sometimes fail—lose control. That is why I understand clearly the worries that the United States has. Perhaps I am expressing some of those concerns when I express my serious concerns about the Bill, and my hope that we can make sufficient improvements to it in Committee to overcome them.
For obvious and genuine reasons, the concern tends to be articulated most spiritedly in relation to our own armed forces and to those of the United States. The possibility that they might find themselves arraigned before the International Criminal Court in circumstances that we would think were thoroughly unjust is a genuine concern. The question of whether the Bill complies with article 6 of the European convention on human rights—someone's right to a fair trial in all its aspects—needs to be crawled over in Committee, but I want to deal with the bigger issues of war and peace.
When one is dealing with international war and peace, one is dealing with very difficult issues. Terrible decisions have to be made in the context of international law. Although perhaps 90 per cent. of international law is universal, the most crucial 10 per cent. is often on the margin.
I was Solicitor-General at the time of the Iraq war, when we were bombing Iraq in a formidable way. I was Attorney-General when we were over-flying subsequently and doing many of the things that we are still doing in Iraq. I could sympathise with the present Government when they had to deal with the difficult questions of Kosovo and of international law that underlay the bombing of Yugoslavia in the recent Kosovo war.
I mentioned in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Foreign Secretary, the views of Mr. Mark Littman QC. Although on balance I do not agree with those views—he condemned what we did in the bombing of Yugoslavia as disproportionate and consequently contrary to international law—it is a genuinely difficult question on which it would be possible for international tribunals to hold different opinions.
When it comes to the use of nuclear weapons, one is on very difficult ground indeed, particularly internationally. Let me focus on that point in the context of the way in which the international community views nuclear weapons. About five years ago, the General Assembly of the United Nations raised a question before the International Court of Justice at The Hague. I personally argued the United Kingdom case before that court.
The General Assembly, backing up the World Health Organisation, which I fear had suffered from a bit of entryism, although the General Assembly cannot be accused of that, questioned the legality of the use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance whatever, whereas we in the House today know perfectly well that the ability at least to use nuclear weapons was an absolute essential in the maintenance of peace between about 1950 and the collapse of the former Soviet Union.
The General Assembly said that nuclear weapons could never be used. The judgment of the international court left the door open to the possibility of their use in proper

defensive circumstances—it is difficult to construe, but it did leave that door open—but what would be the position if we did have to consider using them? Heaven forbid that we should ever again have to consider using them in the context of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but if we look carefully at page 72 of the Bill and at paragraph 2(b)(iv) and (v) of article 8, we will ask ourselves whether we were entitled to use nuclear weapons in those circumstances. That is a genuine question.

Mr. Mackinlay: That point has exercised me a lot. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is an advocate and has no doubt provided defence for people in the past. The defence of the United Kingdom and United States in relation to the use of atomic weapons is based on proportionality: invading the land mass of Japan would have involved a colossal and disproportionate loss of allied soldiers' lives, and there was an obligation to minimise the loss of our service men. That was the defence, and it would be accepted as a reasonable defence. For the record, I do not want people necessarily to think that I am defending the use of nuclear weapons, but I can understand the defence. It is legitimate. It is not a grey area. The bomb was a weapon and one has an obligation to use a weapon to minimise one's losses of service men in war.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman, in second world war terms, makes a powerful case, but we may be talking about very different circumstances. Consider how the International Criminal Court is made up. At the moment, 137 state parties are signatories. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) that there are about 170 members of the United Nations General Assembly, so the great majority of the General Assembly—the body that is opposed to the use of nuclear weapons at all—elect the judges. They elect 18 judges and the prosecutor by secret ballot. It is therefore possible that they will elect judges and a prosecutor who have a no doubt absolutely bona fide genuine dislike of a number of things on the international scene, including nuclear weapons. They may have a strong view about the attitude that we are taking to Iraq at the moment. We know that our attitude to Iraq is controversial in international terms, although we believe it to be right. The possibility is wide open that those who prosecute and those judges might take a very different view of the bombing of Yugoslavia: they might consider it disproportionate.
In those circumstances, look at the position of the soldier, sailor or airman, which is what has been concerning our senior officers, including Admiral Boyce. We tend to use our armed forces as surrogates for our politicians in these matters. There will be those who will see the decision of our Prime Minister in Yugoslavia in a very different light—and who would have seen the decision of our then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, on the Belgrano incident in a very different light. I have no hesitation in saying—I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Attorney-General and had a close insight into the matter—that the Belgrano was an extremely dangerous warship even if it was very old-fashioned. It was tragic that it was manned by a very large number of inexperienced young men who lost their lives, but it had to be dealt with. The fact that we had an extremely modern submarine that could do that without posing too great a danger did not mean that we were not justified in doing it.


An international tribunal might have taken an entirely different view on the matter had the commanding officer of the submarine, the senior officers or a senior British politician involved in the decision come before it. Those issues are bound to haunt us. Although the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was right that we should consider those issues, they are also bound to haunt those who take such decisions.

Mr. Gapes: I am not quite clear where the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is leading. I suspect that it may be leading to the conclusion that we should tear up our obligations under the Geneva conventions, reject the non-proliferation treaty and adopt a unilateralist view of the world that does not take into account international law in any form because it might be inconvenient for us. I hope that that is not what he is suggesting.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Indeed it is not—and I noticed the hon. Member for Thurrock worrying about the same thing. I believe very strongly in obedience to international law, and for 10 years I was personally responsible for doing everything that I could to ensure that our Government obeyed international law. I also believe that, in that period, they did obey international law. However, it is a matter of who judges and of whether one is judged by an independent and impartial tribunal that does not have a political agenda. I merely flag that up as a warning, which could be overstated. Nevertheless, we have to think very carefully about what would happen in relation to such issues should they be considered by the international court.
Let us consider the role of the prosecutor. Who will control the prosecutor? The answer is that the prosecutor will be controlled partly by the pre-trial judges. In theory, ultimately, the Security Council will also have some control over the prosecutor. However, whereas in this dangerous world the Security Council cannot do anything positive without unanimity because each member has a veto, in this case, although the United Kingdom, the United States, France and perhaps every other Security Council member—except, hypothetically, let us say Russia or China—believed that a prosecution on which the international court was minded to proceed was really quite disproportionate and inappropriate, they could not stop it unless every member at least withheld its veto. Therefore, that degree of control which has been a very important part of the working of the Security Council in the 50-plus years since the United Nations was established does not work in quite the same way in this case.
I am anxious that we may have to take decisions in matters of war and peace in which our service personnel and our politicians may find themselves subject to prosecution by the international court in circumstances in which we know that that would not be appropriate, and that that might prevent the taking of very necessary and difficult decisions in the international sphere—in relation to Iraq, for example—that we would otherwise take. I can quite see that that is an underlying worry for the United States that we shall have to tussle through and consider very carefully indeed. Those are the main points that I wished to flag up as warnings in relation to the Bill.
Senator Pinochet was mentioned earlier in the debate. I always felt that the people to try Senator Pinochet, if they thought it right, were the Chileans. That is now the position. He is in Chile, and that is correct. However, there is a difference between the European convention on extradition and that proposed in the Bill. In the European convention on extradition, the Home Secretary has a residual right not to surrender someone, for whatever reason he considers proper. Of course, if, in the Home Secretary's view, someone is rightly accused under international law, he would not exercise that right to prevent extradition.
The Bill provides for no such residual right and residual power. It is therefore possible that our armed forces and those to whom our country entrusts those very difficult decisions—the Government of the day—could find themselves subject to courts in inappropriate circumstances. I believe most profoundly that that detracts not one iota from our duty to obey international law. To the extent that the Bill will heighten the realisation that we must obey international law, it will do good. However, if it were to inhibit us in the next 50 years from taking the desperately difficult decisions that have affected war and peace in the past 50 years, so that the member states that elected the judiciary and the prosecutor but did not have to carry the heat and burden of the day were to inhibit necessary, dangerous and difficult decisions, it might do long-term damage.
I hate to pour a little cold water on a Bill that has such noble objectives, but the objective of this House is to ask the difficult questions in the hope that they can be satisfactorily answered.

Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside): On 27 January 2001, a very important event took place in Central Hall in London. That event was the commemoration of the very first national Holocaust memorial day. Those who were present at that very moving and very serious event will have been struck by the way in which the event itself underlined the reason for having a Holocaust memorial day in the United Kingdom. It was about remembering and learning from the lessons of the Holocaust; remembering other horrific acts of genocide, such as Rwanda, Cambodia and Kosovo; and reinforcing the importance of individual responsibility. When the Prime Minister, in his contribution to that ceremony, referred very graphically to a scene from the very powerful film "Schindler's List", the importance of that individual responsibility was highlighted.
I think that it is very appropriate that this Government—the same Government who instituted national Holocaust memorial day—are seeking in the very same year to ratify the International Criminal Court, and to do so as one of the first 60 signatories which are required to enable the court to go into action.
It seems that we have not learned very much in the past 50 years, during which there have been more than 250 conflicts and more than 86 million civilians have died. In the 1970s, 2 million people—40 per cent. of the population of Cambodia—were killed by the Khmer Rouge in the killing fields of Cambodia. We know of other atrocities, some of which have already been mentioned in this debate.
We need an International Criminal Court. Currently, no international body can hold individuals, rather than states, to account. The idea for a court of this nature is not new. Indeed, we have to be persistent in pursuing and securing justice. In the 20th century—from the treaty of Versailles to the formulation by the League of Nations, in 1937, of the protocol establishing an International Criminal Court, to the tribunals of Nuremberg and Tokyo—some progress has been made. It was President Truman who described the Nuremberg tribunal as
The first International Criminal assize in history".
There have been ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the Geneva conventions have been accepted. However, the basis for the Bill was established in some detail 50 years ago, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the conventions on genocide and invited the International Law Commission to study the establishment of an international judicial organisation to deal with genocide. That was in December 1948. Now, in April 2001, we are here on this historic night in the House of Commons Chamber, debating the legislation that will assist that court to go into action.
Our discussions tonight flow from the Rome statute signed in July 1998, which the United Kingdom signed in November of that year. According to the most recent information available on the UN website today, 139 nations have signed the protocol establishing the ICC, and 29 states have ratified it.
If this country adds its name to the ICC's ratification at this critical time, we will be one of the first 60 countries to do so. That will mean that we have played a crucial part in setting up that international court.
It is important that the court be set up, and that that is accomplished speedily. It would be a permanent standing court, dealing with the most heinous of crimes—genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It would not suffer from the selectivity and difficulties encountered by the ad hoc tribunals that we have at present, good as their work has been.
The ICC would enshrine in an international court the principle of individual responsibility. It would establish the principle that individuals cannot hide behind the orders of a superior. There would be no immunity for anyone found to have acted in a horrendous way. In the words of Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg international tribunal:
The idea that a state commits crimes is a fiction. Crimes are committed only by persons.
We forget that at our peril. If we are truly concerned about individual responsibility and accountability, we must never the forget the responsibility of individuals for what they do.
The Bill will also encourage states to take their own actions to deal with horrendous crimes. The principle of complementarity enshrined in the Bill is important, as is the principle of automatic jurisdiction. The provisions making British domestic law compatible with what is to be implemented internationally are extremely important. All those factors taken together make it more likely that states will take their responsibilities seriously.
Setting up an International Criminal Court such as that described in the Bill in a proper and considered way will not only bring to account those who have committed heinous crimes but will act as a deterrent to the potential criminals of the future—the future Pol Pots—and perhaps the future actions of Saddam Hussein.
Various hon. Members have spoken about the possible difficulties that could arise from the ICC's proceedings, and I take them very seriously. For those of us who really care about international justice and about bringing those who commit atrocities to account, it is equally important that we look at the detail of what we are doing. It would not be acceptable for the ICC to be right in principle but to fail in practice, and we must not allow that to happen.
I therefore agree that it is very important that there should be proper scrutiny of the detail of the Bill and of the provisions for the International Criminal Court. It is important that the pre-trial chamber properly assesses cases before they go to trial. It is important too that three judges will have to decide that there are substantial grounds to take a case to the ICC before that case can proceed.
It is essential that the prosecutor should be independent and that he or she can be removed if it is thought that he or she is not acting in a proper or impartial manner. It is important that the prosecutor should be able to defer to states that are able and willing to conduct their own investigations. It matters too that the Security Council can defer investigation for 12 months if the prosecution stands in the way of international peace and security.
Those and other points matter, and it is of the utmost importance that the detail of the court's proceedings are considered properly, but that must be done in the spirit of wanting the court to succeed. We must be determined that the court will be set up as soon as possible, and that it will be efficient. It must be accepted by everyone as having the highest standards.
Elected Governments do many things. They make policy—as is happening tonight—and set a moral lead. By pressing ahead with setting up the International Criminal Court now, this Government are doing both. As Kofi Annan said:
In the prospect of an international court lies the promise of universal justice. That is the simple and soaring hope of this vision. We are close to its realisation. Only when no state, junta or army anywhere can abuse human rights with impunity will the innocents of distant wars and conflicts know that they too may sleep under the cover of justice. They will know that they too have rights, and that those who violate those rights will be punished.
Setting up the International Criminal Court is a major step forward for humanity. For the United Kingdom to make that happen in the same year that it instituted national holocaust memorial day will give this country an important place in history. I feel proud to have been able to play a very small part in enabling that to happen.

Mr. Martin Bell: I shall, as always, be extremely brief. I have listened to the debate with great interest and, when it got partisan, not a little dismay. If ever an issue required seriousness, this is it.
In some three hours, I have heard no mention of the quality of justice that the International Criminal Court will dispense, nor of the safeguards that it will offer to the accused. It is important that someone should make the case—and I am willing to do so—for the rights of accused alleged war criminals. That is especially true if people such as Milosevic, Mladic or Karadzic appear before the court. In cases such as that, a miasma of perceived guilt will attach to the accused.
Such matters are difficult. Nuremberg passed the test, but I am not sure that the criminal tribunal in The Hague passes it, and that is the model on which the ICC is to be based.
I speak from experience. Inevitably, I have been closer to war crimes than most hon. Members. I know the pile of ash and bone that is left when a family is burned alive in its home, and the son and father have tried in vain to defend their relatives. I know what mass graves look like, and I know the stench of death. I know the tatters of clothing and bloodstains that mark scenes of mass execution.
I have given evidence and depositions to prosecution and defence lawyers at the Hague. In every case from the first Tadic case onwards, the defence lawyers felt that the scales of justice were weighted against them—more or less perceptibly, but in every case. I testified in the case of Tihomir Blaskic two years ago. Blaskic was the senior colonel commanding the HVO Bosnian Croat forces in the Lasva valley in central Bosnia during the vicious side war between Muslims and Croats in 1993 to 1994.
I gave evidence for the defence; I believed that there was no proper command and control, and that the Ahmici massacre, of which Blaskic was accused, was the work of freelance forces beyond his control. He was, however, convicted to a virtual life sentence. Now we know from documents found in the palace of the late President Tujman that he was indeed outside the command loop at the time. I trust that his appeal will succeed. Blaskic was one of many who was held for years before being tried. Are we proposing that the International Criminal Court have the same dilatory processes of justice? I hope not.
There is also a problem with the judges. They will come, as they must, from many countries and diverse judicial systems. They will be at the peak of their careers and, we hope, at the peak of their powers. In fact, many of them are quite elderly. In a case that may last a year and a half, one may have to drop out for reasons of ill health and then the defendant will have the right to have the whole case heard again. Blaskic chose not to, and he may well wish that he had, because one of the judges was simply not there for the taking of half the evidence at his trial. If that is the kind of system that the ICC will adopt, I think that we should consider very carefully the rights of the accused, however notorious they may be.
I get the impression that the international criminal tribunal at The Hague dispenses victors' justice. It is a prosecutor's court; it is, in some sense, a political court. I am afraid that when the new court is established and various high-profile cases come before it, as they come before the tribunal at The Hague, the ICC will then be under pressure to convict. It will cost hundreds of millions, maybe thousands of millions of dollars of United Nations money. In the absence of such convictions people will ask why that money is being spent and say that the court is ineffective. We must protect the rights of the accused and, above all, set up a court that will not feed on a diet of convictions.

Ms Oona King: I believe that it is difficult to exaggerate the Bill's importance. It seeks to outlaw crimes against humanity, not just at one

time or place, as some of the international tribunals have sought to do, but at any time or place. In other words, it seeks to ensure that no one is above the law, no matter where they live or who they are.
The International Criminal Court will be a permanent court based at The Hague, with responsibility for trying individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It will come into effect when 60 states ratify the 1998 Rome statute. To date, 139 states have signed the statute and 29 have ratified it. I will be delighted if the United Kingdom is one of the first 60 to ratify it, as I am sure it will be, following the passage of the Bill.
The Government have played a pivotal role in the creation of the ICC. Notwithstanding the remarks of my friend the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), I believe that the ICC will, for the first time, provide the means by which justice may be brought to victims and murderers may be brought to justice. We have not had those means before with an enforceable mechanism.
The ICC will deter potential war criminals and, I hope, contribute towards an end to the culture of impunity. It will also, for the first time, bring conflict within nation states into the jurisdiction of an international court. It will recognise crimes of sexual violence, which had gone unrecognised until very recently, and will go further towards prohibiting the use of child soldiers.
It is important to place the ICC within an historical context. In the last speech that I gave on the ICC in this Chamber, I noted that the first real codification of war crimes was the 1884 Geneva convention. The House of Commons research paper, as ever, is extremely far-reaching in its gathering of evidence. It cites a war crimes tribunal in Greece in 405 BC that held individuals to account. More recently—in 1474—a panel of 28 judges of the Holy Roman Empire stripped one Peter von Hagenbach of his knighthood and sentenced him to death for his role in ordering the murder, rape and mutilation of citizens of the Upper Rhine. These war crimes were committed by men under his command, and his defence, back in 1474—that he was following orders from his superior, the Duke of Burgundy—was rejected.
Despite the passage of 500 years, we remain at a fairly rudimentary stage of institution-building. That is what the ICC seeks to do. In fact, had Peter von Hagenbach committed his war crimes in the 1970s instead of the 1470s, he would probably have got away with murder, just as Pol Pot did. That is why I trust that all Members of the House support the principles behind the Bill. I certainly do, particularly in the light of my visits to Rwanda and Cambodia. Those countries vividly illustrate how genocide and conflict today take place within countries as much as between countries. The corollary is that most victims of war crimes today are civilians, not military personnel. As we have heard, in the last 50 years, more than 86 million civilians have died in more than 250 conflicts.
Many people might be surprised that we have a plethora of laws prohibiting war crimes. I described them in some detail previously in the Chamber, so I will not list them again; suffice it to say that it is not the laws we lack, but the means to enforce them. The 1948 genocide convention took 50 years to muster its first success. If a week is a long time in politics, it is a lifetime in warfare. One need look no further than the meticulous plans that were laid relating to the genocide in Rwanda, which sought to


achieve a murder rate of 1,000 civilians per 20 minutes, to see that we have not a minute to lose. There must be an urgency brought to the Bill and I am delighted that the Government have found time for it, given the pressure of the legislative timetable.
I was pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) say that this is one of the most important Bills he has had the honour to debate in this House in the 35 years he has been a Member. I concur with his judgment and believe that the Bill is so important that we must get it absolutely right.
I wish to turn to some of the problems inherent in the Bill. The first is universal jurisdiction. The greatest concerns are about clauses 51 and 23, which allow Executive discretion. The Bill, as amended in the Lords, limits British jurisdiction to ICC crimes committed on British territory or committed abroad by UK nationals, or to those who are deemed, under the Bill, to be resident in the UK.
The use of the term "resident" means that non-nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes will still be able to visit friends, seek medical advice or go shopping in the UK without fear of prosecution, because they would not be resident here. Other countries have sought to avoid this loophole; Belgium, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and South Africa have all decided on forms of universal jurisdiction to hold those accused under the statute to account. I would hope that we might be able to look at this in Committee and reduce the legal confusion by adopting the concept of "presence" instead of residence, as Canada has done. The definition of residence will add confusion and could undermine the intent of the Bill.
I should like to cite an example. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo—a country in which I take a great deal of interest—over 1 million people have died since 1998 in a war that has sucked in the armies of more than six neighbouring countries and left the population prey to a number of crimes against humanity. Many of those crimes have been perpetrated by foreign mercenaries. The ICC might have no jurisdiction over the offender because, for example, neither the Congo nor the perpetrator's state of nationality had accepted ICC jurisdiction, or because the Congo had not accepted jurisdiction and the nationality of the offender could not be established. If that offender came to the UK, why should he or she not be at risk of prosecution?
The case for universal jurisdiction is particularly striking when a British national falls victim to a crime against humanity committed abroad by a foreign national. On 28 December last year, Charlotte Wilson—a Voluntary Services Overseas teacher—was ambushed and murdered by a Burundian Hutu rebel group. The culprit of that crime, conceivably, could flee to the United Kingdom. I say that because, in my constituency, I have come across people who are alleged to have been war criminals in Rwanda and Bangladesh but have not faced prosecution. They could find a safe haven and be able to escape justice, even when their victims include a British citizen.
I urge the Minister to reconsider accepting the principle of universal jurisdiction. We have already done that in the case of torture and when a person commits grave breaches

of the Geneva conventions. I hope that the Bill will treat equally all those who are present on UK territory, whether nationals or non-nationals, visitors or residents.
I am also concerned about the large degree of Executive discretion in the Bill. There are a number of clauses that provide a Cabinet member with the discretion to take or not to take a certain course of action. I have concerns that this could result in a failure to fulfil the obligations under the Rome statue.
I want to underline what the hon. Member for Tatton said about the quality of justice. We must ensure that justice is done on both sides and try to avoid the historical pattern: justice for the victors and an absolute lack of justice for the vanquished.
Conservative Members have asked the Foreign Secretary to legislate so that British armed forces can never, in theory or practice, be brought before the ICC. That is a worrying position to take, because it implies that we want a criminal court only if somebody promises us that we will never be brought before it. In theory, British service people will never be brought before it, because any bona fide allegation will be investigated by British authorities. That does not mean that they will not be held accountable for their actions. Surely they would not want that. There is already accountability, and a code that can be invoked if they break it.
It is also unlikely in practice that members of the British armed forces could be brought before the court.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Lady cannot make that assertion. She can say that any of our forces brought before our domestic courts will certainly get a fair trial, and that our judges, sharing the same culture, will understand the circumstances, but she cannot guarantee that the ICC will not seek to second-guess the decisions of the United Kingdom courts and take a wholly different view.

Ms King: This is exactly the point: if we are able to show that we have had a thorough investigation, the ICC has no jurisdiction over our armed forces. Does not the hon. Gentleman understand the concept of complementarity around which the proposal is based?

Mr. Blunt: The hon. Lady should consult article 20, paragraph 3(b) of which refers to trials in the United Kingdom that
otherwise were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the norms of due process recognised by international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.
It is the ICC that will have to interpret that article.

Ms King: The hon. Gentleman has to recognise that the Government, and the previous Conservative Government, in signing the conventions, have accepted the jurisdiction of people who may not be British. We should uphold the rule of law and recognise the many built-in mechanisms that would prevent British service people from being brought before the ICC—for example, the role of the Security Council—unless we committed genocide by accident, say—and if we did, frankly, we should indeed be subject to the court. How can we


command any respect if we argue, as Conservative Members appear to be arguing, that we want the law to apply, but not to us?

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady, whose sincerity and conviction I respect, is clearly content to accept the soothing bromides of the Foreign Secretary, but I for one, as someone who is sympathetic to the establishment of the ICC, am not. I invite her to envisage a scenario in which the Government of the day contend that they have conducted a genuine and thoroughgoing investigation into allegations of abuses committed by our armed forces, but the main Opposition party of the day contends that the investigation was defective, whereupon the ICC invokes that fact in support of its decision to bring proceedings.

Ms King: That would be a court case. I do not follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I cannot envisage circumstances in which, for example, the British Government conducted their own investigation, the ICC felt that we were not able to prove that the investigation was sufficiently thorough or unbiased and, on top of all that, the Security Council had no wish to impede the case's progress to the ICC. We must not expect that our armed forces will be protected no matter what; they will be protected because their behaviour, on the whole, reaches the highest standards in the world. On the whole, our armed forces do not go around perpetrating crimes against humanity. However, if they do, I hope that they will not be free from the jurisdiction of the ICC.
In conclusion, I underline the importance of the Bill in establishing a permanent and—I hope—universal jurisdiction for punishing the perpetrators of the world's most heinous crimes. Considering the blood-splattered history of the previous century, surely this is the building block we need. It will take us forward and prevent the recurrence of what has happened in the past. It will make the slogan "never again" a reality.

Dr. Julian LewisEast): It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). I well remember the excellent Adjournment debate that she introduced in October 1999, when I had the pleasure of participating and endorsing most of what she said. Contrary to what some people might think, there is much consensus on the issue across the Floor.
The war crimes aspect causes most concern, where it shades into the conduct of military activity in future conflicts and the way in which military personnel might be held to account. However, I want to leave that point until the end of my remarks and concentrate on the aspects of genocide and crimes against humanity, for which there are at least six good reasons why one needs an International Criminal Court—if satisfactory procedures for operating it can be agreed. The first reason is to punish past killers; the second is to deter future killers; the third is to embarrass those who shelter killers; the fourth is to force countries to put the killers in their midst on trial; the fifth is to prove beyond doubt that the killings actually took place; and the sixth is to bring out aspects of the truth that might otherwise remain hidden.
I shall deal briefly with those reasons in turn—beginning with punishment. I make no bones about the fact that I believe in the virtue of retribution for its own sake. That is an unfashionable statement, but if the concept of punishment or retribution means anything at all in the 21st century, it should certainly apply to the crimes we are talking about—genocide and crimes against humanity. Those are crimes whereby whole swathes of people are eliminated on a group basis. People who have done nothing whatever to incur the hatred, disdain or dislike of the people who attack them are nevertheless liquidated without semblance of pity or mercy. Even if it would not deter one future criminal from the acts committed by mass murderers in the past, every mass murderer whom it is in our power to punish should be punished because it is a matter of natural justice; the blood of the victims cries out for punishment to be carried out.
I shall briefly refer to three examples. I hope that the House will forgive me if I go back to the period about which I know most—the second world war. The first example is Josef Mengele, the angel of death of Auschwitz, who, we now know, died in Brazil. We also know that he was so confident of not being punished that for many years he lived openly under his own name and his family in Germany were in communication with him. That tells us that if the authorities in Germany had had a real will to track down Mengele and bring him to justice, they could easily have done so. It is not for me to speculate why they did not.
The second example is Walter Rauff, the man who invented mobile gas vans. They sometimes had a red cross on the side, but Jews were herded into them and exhaust gases were automatically funnelled into the back so that as the van drove off they were asphyxiated in the most excruciating manner. There are fascinating documents in the archives about the care and attention with which German firms that are still trading today designed those devilish contraptions—to make sure that the "waste materials" and other substances derived from the "process" would not impede the operation of the van. Walter Rauff also lived openly in south America for many years, even being interviewed by magazines, but he was never brought to justice. I like to think that, for all the reasons that I enumerated, an International Criminal Court would have made it much more difficult for him to escape the fate that he richly deserved.
The third case is one that I mentioned briefly in an intervention on the Foreign Secretary—that of Aloïs Brunner, Adolf Eichmann's right-hand man, who was personally responsible for organising the death of more than 40,000 Austrian civilians, more than 40,000 Greek civilians, more than 20,000 French civilians and many Slovaks. He was known, at least by the 1980s, to be living in Syria under the name of Georg Fischer, as an honoured guest of, and an adviser to, the Syrian Government. I have raised the matter in the House on at least half a dozen occasions, in July 1998, July and October 1999 and in March and June 2000.
On 20 June 2000 I thought that I was making progress. I asked the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), whether one contribution towards the building of trust between Syria and Israel would be for the new Syrian regime to clear up the mystery of its long-term sheltering in Damascus of the architect of the holocaust in wartime France and elsewhere, Aloïs Brunner. I asked


whether the Government would make representations to the Syrian regime indicating that it could not expect to be taken seriously in the search for peace as long as a war criminal of that magnitude was sheltered.
The Minister replied that he would look into the matter and write to me. Eventually, he wrote to me in August of that year, and I was much encouraged by what he wrote because there had been a change of regime in Syria. He said that, with the passing of President Hafez al-Assad, more information "might become available" about Brunner. He said also that it might he possible for the Government to make representations once the new leadership in Syria had "settled in".
It was with some confidence, therefore, that I asked another question on 27 February this year. I asked what representations had been made to the Syrian regime about the sheltering of that dreadful man, only to be told by the present Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz):
We have not made representations to the Syrian Government about Aloïs Brunner. There is general agreement that he is almost certainly dead. Inquiries in recent years by the French and German Governments and by journalists have failed to produce evidence of his whereabouts."—[Official Report, 27 February 2001; Vol. 364, c. 584W.]
We heard the Foreign Secretary say this afternoon that if I had fresh evidence, he might consider making representations.
My question in February was timely because, at the beginning of March, a French court thought enough of the possibility that Brunner was still alive and being sheltered in Syria to sentence him, in absentia, to life imprisonment. If the French Government can organise a trial to sentence a missing murderer to life imprisonment, I am disappointed—to put it mildly—that our own Foreign Office seems to have set its face against doing anything, even at the modest level of making representations to the new Syrian Government, especially when the former Minister of State suggested that he was minded to do so.
Perhaps the background is that some professional diplomats in the Foreign Office think that it is not such a good idea to stir up feelings that might upset our relationship with the new Syrian Government, by pursuing that terrible criminal. Even if he is dead—he would only be 88, and plenty of people of that age are still going strong today, including my father—it is important that the record is set straight if Syria, under its new regime, is to be taken seriously in the comity of international society.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is right about Brunner, and we know Brunner's record. However, is he aware that I initiated a debate in the late 1980s about a notorious Nazi war criminal, who was responsible for murder by exhaust fumes before the gas chambers existed? That mass murderer was living in Chile under his own name. In replying to that debate on behalf of the then Government, Malcolm Rifkind made it clear that, although he was obviously concerned, he would make no representations. So the hon. Gentleman is saying nothing unique; I am afraid that successive British Governments have taken that line.

Dr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman sincerely for making that point. I hope that he acknowledges that in no sense am I trying to be party political. I strongly suggest

that, in both those cases, the Government of the day received official diplomatic advice on what was, or was not, a wise course to follow. The hon. Gentleman may have been out of the Chamber when I referred to Walter Rauff, whom I assume is the criminal that he mentions, and I entirely endorse the sentiments that he expresses.
People such as Rauff, Mengele and Brunner deserve punishment in their own right; it is fit and meet that they should be punished, but there are many more positive reasons to support the principle of the International Criminal Court. For example, it will deter people in future now that Milosevic has been taken into custody, although not yet for trial in that court, it is true. Nevertheless, the principle is illustrated that a head of state who wants to wage aggressive and barbaric campaigns against civilians can no longer shelter behind the idea that, whoever else carries the can for the orders that he gives, he will be immune.
The ICC will embarrass countries into taking action that they otherwise would not take. That point has been sufficiently illustrated already. For example, would the Latin American countries have harboured so many terrible Nazi criminals for so long if a court had been available to put pressure on them to give up those criminals? Would so many Nazis have been aided by countries and organisations, and even some parts of the Catholic Church, to escape the retribution that they so richly deserved?
Would members of the SS Galicien division have been allowed into Britain, or having been allowed to enter—perhaps relatively innocently, although I find that hard to credit—would they have been allowed to settle here when questions were being asked about the wartime conduct of so many of the division's members? As a Labour Member said previously, would Idi Amin have found it so easy to continue to have sanctuary in Saudi Arabia?
The fourth reason that I mentioned was to force other countries to try criminals in their midst. Once again, the recent arrest of Milosevic shows the benefit of that.
I should like to spend a moment on the fifth reason, which is to prove that killings actually took place. We know only too well the evil of historical revisionism and of the activities of the Holocaust review organisations and of propagandists such as David Irving, Ernst Zündel in Canada and Fred Leuchter in America—who purported to produce a "scientific" report that the gas chambers had not really been gas chambers at all.
I was deeply impressed by the foresight of the late Lord Bernstein and the late Alfred Hitchcock. When the death camps were opened at the end of world war two, they anticipated that the horror was on such a scale that future generations might fail to believe that it had ever occurred, so they produced the unforgettable film "A Painful Reminder". They visited the camps before the bodies were all buried and they took, with the widest-angled shots possible, a comprehensive cinematographic record of what was found, so that it would become as difficult as possible to deny that the atrocities had taken place.
The final reason is to bring out aspects of the truth other than the fact that killings had taken place. I was reminded of that by an article in The Times today under the heading "I funded Bosnian war, says Milosevic". It reports that Milosevic
had conceded for the first time that he had covertly funded the Bosnian and Croatian Serb armies.


When he was asked to account for all the money that had disappeared, he said that
the details should be kept a state secret, since the money went to finance Serb rebellions against the secession from Yugoslavia of Croatia and Bosnia, as well as to Serbian security troops and 'anti-terrorist forces'.
The funds, not included in official budget figures, were designed to circumvent the international embargo against Yugoslavia, he added.
When we consider the period when our Foreign Office believed that Milosevic was acting as a brake on the activities of Karadzic, how extraordinarily useful it is to learn that those of us who suspected all along that Milosevic was fomenting and supporting such activities were correct.
Even before I deal with the issue of war crimes, there are some other problems with the concept of the court. Those problems have been alluded to and I shall run through them in short order. The first is the concept of "victor's justice". That term has been applied to the Nuremberg tribunals, but no one would deny that the 20 volumes of detailed evidence of Nazi crimes that was gathered at Nuremberg are anything other than an historical source of the first significance. The record of the Nuremberg tribunals makes it extremely difficult to deny the nature of the Nazi regime—and, after a gap of 50 or more years, there would be no shortage of people who would try to do that if they thought that the evidence was not against them.
There is also the argument about the "clean hands" of those sitting on the tribunals. It is true, for example, that Stalin had a judge sitting at Nuremberg. However, the fact that we cannot bring everyone to justice does not mean that we should not bring to justice those people who are capable of being put on trial.
Perhaps a more serious objection relates to the issue of enforcement. Some criminals are too strong to be brought to trial. However, the idea is at least put in the back of their minds that, if one day in future they lose power, they may then be pursued and be held accountable for their actions. The court is still worth while from that point of view.
Problems of access, such as to the atrocities in Afghanistan and Chechnya, have been touched upon, but who would have thought that the time would ever come when dictators such as Todor Zhivkov in Bulgaria or Erich Honecker in East Germany had to face the consequences of their disgraceful activities? That time did come and the court will make it more probable that it will come for other people.
There is little disagreement about the court in respect of the issues of civilian atrocities, genocide and crimes against humanity. The real concern applies to whether normal military action or honest mistakes made during normal military action could end up being defined as war crimes. I sympathise with the doubts expressed by my hon. Friends on the Back Benches. We only have to consider the way in which some recent legislation abuses the concept of human rights to realise that people fear that the definition of a war crime could be stretched too far and thus undermine the principles that the court is being established to support.

Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend touches on an important matter. Does he agree that members of all political parties

in this House and in the other place often express amazement at the frequency with which the decisions of successive British Governments are challenged in the European Court of Human Rights? Does he also agree that, despite the best intentions, there is a great danger that something that we would regard as legitimate might be ascribed by a rogue state, which is nevertheless a nominal signatory to the new statute, as a war crime and could result in lawful actions by our armed forces being brought before the new court?

Dr. Lewis: That is precisely my point, although my hon. Friend puts it more succinctly. I hope that Labour Members can tell from the sincerity of my positive approach to the Bill that my reservation is also sincere. My hon. Friend articulates my concern well.
It is often said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There is also a danger that the devil makes work for idle hands. The argument is finely balanced. There are advantages to a standing court: for example, it helps to avoid disputes over whether trials are held retrospectively, which is one of the criticisms of Nuremberg. The disadvantage is that people might be tempted to run to a standing court with complaints that would not be entertained if it meant establishing an ad hoc court to consider a specific problem. I am inclined to think that the balance is in favour of a standing court.
On military action and warfare, there is a long and sad history of attempts to outlaw aspects of war by international law. The Washington naval treaty and the Geneva gas protocol of the 1920s were subsequently flouted. It was deterrence that prevented gas from being used by the combatants in the second world war. The experiences of the Jewish people who fell under Nazi control—including my relatives and those of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King)—prove that it was used against the helpless. Similarly, in 1939, at the outset of the second world war, our bombers were instructed not to bomb land targets for fear of collateral civilian casualties. They bombed ships only at sea. In a real war, such restrictions soon go out of the window. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) has ably made the point that the principle of nuclear deterrence could be challenged.
I have a final question, to which I would appreciate a response. What happens if the United Kingdom tries and acquits a member of our armed forces who has been accused of a war crime? Is that the end of the matter, or can the ICC decide that it is not satisfied with the verdict and that it will intervene?
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) drew my attention to article 17 of the Rome statute, which states:
the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
or
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute".
I do not need to point out that the insertion of the word "genuinely" into both paragraphs begs many questions.
Conservative Members do not want killers to escape justice, or people who commit crimes against humanity to laugh in the face of world opinion, as they have done in the past. However, in our pursuit of thoroughly admirable aims, we do not wish innocent service men to be brought before an international court simply because the processes in our democratic society, whereby they have been found not guilty, are deemed insufficient by that court.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief because some hon. Members spoke at length and thus prevented others from taking part in the debate.
Although I welcome the principle of the International Criminal Court, as I welcome many other conventions and processes that were introduced in the past century, we must be objective about the practical effect. For example, the League of Nations was promoted by a courageous American President, Woodrow Wilson, and eventually rejected by the United States Congress and Senate. It collapsed partly through non-adherence and partly because of non-US participation.
In giving the Bill a Second Reading, we should convey the strong message that we support the principle of the International Criminal Court absolutely, and that we ask for no exemptions or opt-outs. The US position appears to be a willingness to sign the basic protocol in order to participate in the negotiations, and a determination to ensure that it has no jurisdiction over any US citizen. That is unacceptable.
Conservative Members have gone on at length about the potential for a case against members of the British armed forces. Obviously, we hope that circumstances would not arise whereby such a case could be made. However, signing up to an international court process means acceptance of its jurisdiction over oneself as well as everybody else. Embarrassing and difficult though that might be, it is what international treaties are all about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) asked why the process could not be applied retrospectively. That is a serious gap in the measure. The only international legal processes that have had any effect in recent years are the Nuremberg tribunals after the second world war, the tribunals on Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and the more limited tribunal on genocide in Cambodia. Many other cases deserve such international tribunals. I do not understand why at least selective retrospection cannot be applied to specific areas of conflict. For example, someone has to be responsible for the horrors in Afghanistan, where hundreds of thousands of people have died in the past 25 years. The methods that are used to deal with the conflict in Chechnya should also be the subject of a tribunal. Other examples include the conflicts in Congo and in Latin American countries.
The process has been hastened by the actions of Spanish Judge Garzon in his successful attempt to have Pinochet arrested in London. It is unfortunate that Pinochet was not extradited to Spain, but returned to Chile on the Home Secretary's decision, which was based on medical advice. That advice was curiously overturned by a military hospital in Chile, which decided that he was fit to face trial.
Unfortunately, the process in Chile is far from over. Pinochet has been trying exactly the same tactics of evasion, delay and endless supposedly medical arguments,

and he now seeks the diminution of charges against him. I am sure that the Members who were so keen not to extradite him to Spain on the ground that he should face prosecution in Chile will be concerned that he may still be evading prosecution in Chile in the future.
I visited Chile in December; my visit is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. I witnessed the hope and the fear of Pinochet's victims, and their concern that he should face some kind of process. People told me then that they wished that there had been an international process not only against the military dictatorship in Chile between 1973 and 1990, but against all the dictators in the southern cone—Argentina, Uruguay and Chile—for their persecution of so many people in that part of Latin America.
If ever there was a case for a special process, it has to be the investigation of Operation Condor, and all the horrors that went with it. However, I suspect that there will be no such international process, because it would be too embarrassing to too many people. The causes of injustice, as well as the symptoms—such as the military power that leads to the injustice later—have to be addressed. Those causes have to be the imbalance between rich and poor, the unaccountable power of the military, the interference of multinational companies in other countries, and the corruption of the political process. Any process relating to the examination of Operation Condor, for example, would obviously seek to indict generals in all those countries of Latin America, but it would also seek to examine the role of multinational corporations, of the Central Intelligence Agency, and of Henry Kissinger, whom I saw wandering around the House only two weeks ago. He would be in a good position to tell us about the covert operations of the United States at that time.
Much has been said about state parties, and the need for a prosecution system against them. When the Minister replies, will he tell us whether he has any expectation that the ICC process will give any hope to the people of Colombia, for example? The number who have already died in the various conflicts there far exceeds the death toll of any other conflict in Central or South America in recent times. The death rate in Colombia is still accelerating, as a combination of militias, armed forces, drugs barons and unauthorised gangs engage in civil war. The losers, as ever, are the poorest people in the poorest part of that country. We should look more carefully at the reasons for conflict in the first place: the grab for land, minerals or power, which so often leads to injustice and the reigns of terror that result in the death of so many people.
There are two specific areas of the Bill that I would like the Minister to deal with when he replies to the debate. The first concerns clause 23(4), which says:
The Secretary of State may in any particular case, after consultation with the ICC and the state concerned, direct that proceedings (or further proceedings) under this Part
shall not be taken against a person covered by subsection (1) or (2).
I cannot understand why subsection (4) is in the Bill, and I hope that it can be removed in Committee or on Report. It seems suspiciously like an attempt to limit the jurisdiction of the ICC over this country. If we deplore other countries seeking opt-outs from particular parts of the provisions, we should not be seeking opt-outs


ourselves. The whole point of having an International Criminal Court process is that one accepts the principle in its entirety.
The second area of concern, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) mentioned, is the definition of ordinary residence in the United Kingdom. I intervened on the Foreign Secretary earlier to ask about this, and he thought that there was not a problem. I invite him to look again at that part of the Bill. I have read some legal opinions on the matter, and it seems to me that there is the most enormous problem with that issue, which really should be addressed. Instead of applying the difficult criterion of residence or non-residence—anyone who has dealt with immigration law will be aware of the niceties of the terms "residence" and "non-residence"—we should apply the criterion that anyone present in this country at any one time who is indicted by the ICC should be subject to its jurisdiction within this country.
The process that brought about the development of the International Criminal Court is based on the horror at the genocide that has taken place in so many parts of the world and at the millions of people who have died in conflicts. Although we obviously want an International Criminal Court process that can bring to justice the perpetrators of such crimes, we also want to ensure that it is not a political victors' court. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) for making that point. It must be a court that will genuinely try people without being subject to huge campaigns of outside pressure to gain convictions at all costs. It must be seen to be an objective and trustworthy place in which decisions can be made. I hope that we shall agree to that tonight.
I return to the point with which I started. I urge the House to consider the causes of human rights abuses round the world and the need for sufficient expenditure by member states of the United Nations and its agencies to ensure that the processes of the International Criminal Court are carried out. Last week I attended the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva on behalf of Liberation, a non-governmental organisation in this country. We heard an excellent speech by Mary Robinson, followed by one by Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Tragically, Mary Robinson is not seeking reappointment as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights—[HON. MEMBERS: "She is."] She has changed her mind. Excellent! I was not aware of that.
However, Mary Robinson made the point very effectively in her speech that if the UN is serious about human rights, it must give her and her office the resources, the staff and the finances to do the job. It is no good going round the world hand-wringing about human rights abuses if we do not give the international agencies the necessary support and authority to deal with them. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading tonight, but I believe that there are at least two serious flaws in it that I hope will be corrected in Committee or on Report. I also hope that we do not go down the road followed by US Presidents such as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and by the Conservative party, who say, "This should apply to everybody but me." That will be impossible if we are to go forward with any kind of process of international justice and international law.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: This is an extremely important debate, and I echo the remarks of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) in that respect. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) deplored the air of partisanship that had occurred in the debate; I deplore that as well. It was regrettable that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) considered it a matter for party political advantage that Conservative Members might oppose the Bill on Third Reading owing to the practicalities and problems inherent in it.
This is an immensely important measure. The wider case for it was made extremely eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), and I pay tribute to him for an excellent speech. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) made an extremely pertinent point. She said that it was absolutely essential that the court should work. If it fails to work, we run the risk of undermining the stability of international relationships. The consequences would be as serious as that, and that is why this is such an important measure. The Bill has the capacity to undermine the willingness of the states that have policed the world since 1945 to carry on bearing that burden and undertaking that role.
If the Bill works as we would like it to work, it may take us forward to a new order of international relations in which proper justice—the true justice that is blind—is administered to those who have carried out such crimes and is applied fairly and freely across the world. In that sense, the efforts behind the establishment of the criminal court and its incorporation in our criminal justice system are much to be welcomed. However, we must consider the background.
In 1951, the United Kingdom undertook to sign up to the European convention on human rights, but it was never expected that our armed forces would be subject to it in the way that they are now. We are in such a position that I and, I am glad to say, my party have come to the view that such is the effect on our armed forces that it is necessary to seek a derogation from the terms of the convention, just as the French were able to do when they signed up to the treaty much later than us. Although the intentions behind the measure are fine, we must be able to tell our armed forces rather more than how it should be implemented. By and large, they will be the means by which the United Kingdom, as a member of the United Nations Security Council, fulfils the role and responsibility that it has taken on in international relations and in policing agreements put in place by the UN.
We have our own interest in international stability, which will always be important to the United Kingdom. Ours is a nation of 60 million people, so it will remain important whatever happens in future. The effect on this country of such a measure will be out of all proportion to that on other countries, so we must be able to tell our armed forces that we know what we are letting them in for. That is why the concerns of the Chief of the Defence Staff, which have been virtually expressed on the record, have to be taken seriously.
To put the matter in detailed focus for hon. Members, I shall relate the experience of a soldier in my old regiment, the 13th/18th Hussars, who happened to be my driver when I was a squadron commander in the late 1980s. I met him again in Bosnia when I was a special


adviser to Sir Malcolm Rifkind when he was Secretary of State for Defence. A few weeks earlier, that soldier had been involved in a firefight in which he had chosen to fire on Croatian Bosnians who were engaging with his troop of armoured cars.
Through such actions, the British forces in Bosnia had achieved a reputation as ones that the bandits did not mess with. That reputation did not adhere to the other forces taking part in the UN operation, because they were not as resolute, not as well-trained and not as prepared at junior non-commissioned officer level to take decisions such as that taken by that soldier. If the Bill is not implemented in the way that we all desire, the consequence will be that our armed forces will lose the will to engage in such operations. The Chief of the Defence Staff has expressed concerns, and how the Bill works is fundamental.

Mr. Browne: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. So that we can understand the environment in which the events that he is describing took place, can he explain whether that soldier was under the jurisdiction of the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia when he made those decisions? Was he prevented from making the right decisions by being subject to the tribunal's jurisdiction?

Mr. Blunt: Of course, the answer is no. He was subject to that jurisdiction, but I know him and I would not imagine for a moment that he knew either that he was subject to a tribunal or the exact detail of what would happen to him in The Hague if things went wrong. That is another issue, but it leads me to how we teach soldiers the laws of war. That process has to be gone through to bring home to them the consequences of their actions. The more complicated we make that process, and the more detail there is, the more concern we cause the chain of command in relation to people being prepared to take responsibility, and to act in circumstances in which an instant judgment must be made about whether such action is proper.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman think his driver was aware that he was subject to the terms of the Geneva convention? If he was, is there any evidence to suggest that British forces in Bosnia or Kosovo have felt in any way inhibited by their responsibility to adhere to the terms of the convention?

Mr. Blunt: I hope that he was. I probably taught him the lessons in the course of military training. However, to an extent the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right: in the terms of the Geneva convention and the laws of war, the actions that he took, according to his judgment, were correct.
That is what will happen if the court works as we want it to work, but I fear that the way in which it is set up may mean that it will not. The state of Israel has declared its concerns about the way in which the treaty had been set up. Part of its declaration states:
At the 1998 Rome conference, Israel expressed its deep disappointment and regret at the insertion into the Statute of formulations tailored to meet the political agenda of certain states. Israel warned that such an unfortunate practice might reflect on the intent to abuse the Statute as a political tool.
Given the terms of the treaty, I must say that I believe Israel may have a point. We should consider the way in which the judges will be elected. In that context, I urge hon. Members to note the detail of what is in the treaty, and what was agreed in the Rome statute.
The 18 judges will be elected on the basis of one state, one vote. I refer to states that are signatories to the statute, have acceded to it and have ratified it. That would put states such as Mali and Trinidad and Tobago on the same footing as others as large as the United States of America—if, that is, the United States were to become involved in the treaty. A state in the position of the state of Israel, having received the treatment that it has received at the hands of the General Assembly of the United Nations, can be expected to have concerns about the sort of people who will be elected, by secret ballot, as judges to decide these matters.
Once the judges are in place in a permanent institution, that institution—as other hon. Members have said—will be under pressure to act, and to produce work to do. We have seen, both in the institutions of the European Union and in those of the European convention on human rights, judge-made law and the pushing back of its boundaries. Given the nature of the judges who might be elected to serve on the ICC, exactly the same might happen.

Mr. Browne: I am interested by the hon. Gentleman's use of the phrase, "produce work to do". He will know that in the last 50 years of the last century, 860 million people died in conflicts throughout the world. Like other hon. Members, I suspect that, far from the tribunal looking for work to do, work will be queueing up to be done. The notion that the tribunal will go around the world for political reasons looking for work to do is fanciful, is it not?

Mr. Blunt: I hope so, but what if the institution does not work in the way that we intend? What way of protecting the interests of the armed forces is open to us? I am afraid that the House must take account of such considerations. It must consider whether the 170 or 180 states belonging to the United Nations that could accede to the statute could produce an agenda that was against the interests of the permanent members of the Security Council—against, perhaps, the interests of the United States and the United Kingdom—such as the agenda that currently operates in the skies over Iraq.
I should have thought that a large majority in the United Nations would say that the actions of our pilots in bombing Baghdad amount prima facie to a war crime. If the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence were not going to be put on trial in the UK, the International Criminal Court, if it had a majority of judges so willed, would seek leave to put a case. That is my concern. Potentially, the way in which the institution is set up will not act in the interests of global stability.
Labour Members have properly advanced the argument that it is right to have an international system of justice and that it is not right for the United Kingdom to say that we should have an opt-out. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) made those points clearly. To an extent, he is right. We will subject ourselves, if the Bill becomes law, to the jurisdiction of the ICC. That is why it is so important, when we act to limit the sovereignty of our action and the ability to conduct our affairs as we would want, that we are confident that the institutions that we are setting up will meet our needs. In the end, our needs are met through nations such as the United States, Great Britain, France,


Germany—the great democracies of the world now—having the ability, to an extent, to influence and to police world affairs, as they have in the past.
The United Kingdom and the United States have a proud record of protecting the interests of liberty and freedom in the decades since 1945. The issue is that, in the new world order to be policed by the ICC under the mechanisms set up in the Rome statute, there is a threat to our willingness to go on making the contribution in security terms. The threat has been made explicit in the United States, and I believe that the Senate will never ratify the statute. To an extent, that will undermine its whole effectiveness. The fact that we cannot get the United States to agree to the statute punches a huge hole through it. Of course, it was always going to be enormously difficult, with the traditions and history of the United States, to get the United States Senate to agree to the statute, but I do not believe that the set-up for the election of the judges, who in the end will make the decision, was ever going to be acceptable to the United States.
Within the statute, greater account should have been given to the size and importance of countries. After all, that is why the United Nations Security Council was set up with five permanent members in 1945—it recognised the realities of the security issues of the day. I do not believe, on the amount of attention that I have been able to give to the statute and to the proceedings before us, that we can be satisfied that it does that. I regret that, so far, I have not been able to give the matter the attention that it deserves. I hope to have the opportunity to do so in Committee.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: In December 1948, the United Nations Assembly first discussed the idea of an international criminal court. There is no doubt that tonight's debate is another small step on the road to achieving that aim—a road that has already taken well over 50 years. If it takes us a few weeks longer, it is understandable.
There has been so much interest in the debate that not all hon. Members have been able to speak in it. However, Opposition and Government Front Benchers took many interventions, as did other speakers. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes)—to name just three hon. Members—are disappointed that they have not been able to speak, and we are sorry that we have not been able to hear their speeches.
There is no doubt that there is great interest in the Bill's safe passage, if that is the will of the House. I shall speak only briefly—which will please the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who so kindly criticised the way in which I handled another Bill in Committee—because I want to give the Minister an opportunity to answer the many questions that have been asked. We shall be able to raise other issues in Committee.
When the Foreign Secretary opened the debate, hon. Members—perhaps inevitably, in the context of this Bill—thought of the Balkans, particularly now that Milosevic has been arrested and there are discussions on

the point at which he should be sent to The Hague to face trial for the hideous crimes against humanity for which he is widely believed to be responsible. We want Milosevic to be arraigned at The Hague before too much time has passed, but we must, as I hope the Foreign Secretary will agree, respect the decisions of those who have to live most immediately with the consequences, and of course we wish them well.
The Foreign Secretary also quite rightly pointed out the greater and wider interest in the Bill among non-governmental organisations, including Amnesty International. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was slightly waspish in his view of the Opposition's attitude and support for the Bill. At the same time, however. I join him in paying tribute to the legal team, under the leadership of Sir Franklin Berman, who negotiated on behalf of the United Kingdom. The Foreign Secretary said that our concerns were misplaced. He will therefore undoubtedly ensure that all our concerns are dealt with fully in Committee.
In reply to the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) quite rightly reiterated the Opposition's broad support for the principle of the Bill and offered constructive support in working with the Government. He also raised the issues that are on everyone's lips and on which assurances and clarification are sought. Those issues were certainly raised in the speeches that we have heard today.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie must agree with us on some of those issues, as he said that this is not a perfect Bill and that it will be an imperfect court. He also made the point that if we do not embrace the Bill, we will never have an international criminal court, but I take issue with him on that. Although he seemed to believe that any criticism of the Bill must be wrong, he asked various questions about it. He asked, for example, for further explanation of the powers of retrospection. I look forward to the amendments that he said he may table.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie also expressed reservations about the United States' position—a theme that was taken up by other Members. Although he said that signing up to the statute was the only good thing that Clinton had done, he also said that the reservations that Clinton added to his signature were very disturbing.
Sadly, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)—who has left the Chamber—was unable to speak in the debate, although she intervened to point out that the United States had an ambassador for war crimes. I hope that she will be able to serve on the Committee because I think that she could make a contribution to the Bill's passage.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) gave his usual support to the Government and then turned to attack Conservative Members—no surprises there. However, he raised the important issue of the scrutiny of treaties in this place and the Ponsonby rules I hope that he will have the opportunity to raise that issue in Committee if he is fortunate enough to be a member. He also said that, in his 45 years in the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is 35".] My goodness, a week is a long time in politics! He said that


this is the most important legislation that the House has considered in the 35 years in which he has been an hon. Member.
I should like to pay a small tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. This evening's speech may have been his last contribution to this House on a substantial piece of business—although he may have other opportunities, as the Government have another year to run. He has always brought a serious and courteous tone to debates, which I, for one, have appreciated. When he finally leaves this place, he will be much missed on all sides.
I offer my apologies to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) as I was not in the Chamber for the totality of his contribution. However, I heard a small part of it, and I share his frustration that it took so long to get the Bill to Second Reading. He displayed his great knowledge of the Canadian legislation and its passage through that country's House. He felt that the Bill was a profoundly important piece of legislation. He has sustained a great interest in these matters over a long time, and he will make a valuable contribution to our deliberations on the Bill.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) speaks from great experience. He drew on the example of the Belgrano to explore what might have happened to our Prime Minister of the time and to members of the armed services if the Bill, as drafted, had obtained at that time. He raised issues about nuclear weapons that need to be discussed, and asked the important question about who judges. He also touched on the role of the prosecutor. My right hon. and learned Friend reflected the feelings of all Conservative Members when he said that he did not want to pour cold water on the noble aims of the Bill, but he noted that detailed examination was necessary when such complex and serious legislation is involved.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) confirmed that 139 countries had signed up to the statute, but that only 29 have ratified it so far. She echoed the aim expressed by many hon. Members that Britain should be among the first 60 countries to ratify the ICC. She quoted Kofi Annan—quite rightly so—but in so doing stole my thunder, and I shall not repeat the observation in question. The attention that she gave to national Holocaust day will be appreciated in the Chamber, and by a wider audience as well.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) raised some uniquely important matters that must be discussed in Committee. He talked about the unique problems that may face the accused, and about those people's rights—an element that has been sadly lacking in debates to date on the ICC. He raised the spectre of the political court and of the pressures for a conviction in high-profile cases. He also spoke about the quality of justice—or, indeed, of mercy—and I feel sure that it would be valuable to explore more issues along those lines.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) has made speeches on this subject before. Indeed, I was in the Chamber when she secured her Adjournment debate on 27 October 1999. She wants to pay particular attention to the concept of residence introduced by a Minister in another place, which she believes is causing confusion. She also used powerful examples from Rwanda, on which she is a great and

acknowledged expert. She challenged our attempts to protect the armed forces, and I look forward to pursuing those arguments in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) made his usual cogent and well-argued contribution. His was a powerful speech, which relied on his great and extensive knowledge of the second world war. He wanted to know what would happen if the UK tried a member of the armed services in the UK, and he inquired about the consequences of the results of such a trial.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) went on about Colombia, and again raised the issue of the definition of the phrase "ordinarily resident" as applied to the UK. He admitted that the Bill contains serious flaws that must be corrected in Committee.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) gave the House the benefit of knowledge gathered during a distinguished Army career. He spoke about the consequences of the Bill for the armed forces.
Finally, I would like to restate the points that were made in good faith by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, on examination of the Bill. So far, we believe that there should be four amendments—the seven-year opt-out provided for under article 124; the discretion for the Secretary of State over the issuing of warrants from the ICC through an interpretive declaration; the revision of the legal test under clause 65 for what a military commander ought to have known; and an amendment to ensure that if the Bill becomes law and ratification takes place, the declarations from the Government must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
Despite some of the more immature asides from Labour Members, I believe that we have made progress tonight. In anticipation of a responsive dialogue with the Government on our attempts to protect our armed forces and to show that we wish the Bill well, we will not vote against it on Second Reading. However, I give due warning that we are not rubber-stamping this process and that if the safeguards that we ask for are not put in place, we will be unable, sadly, to support the Bill on Third Reading.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): We will be able to look back on tonight as the night that we introduced a Bill proposing putting the full weight of the House of Commons behind the establishment of the International Criminal Court. That will be a giant step forward for universal human rights and the rule of international law. For the first time, there will be a truly international body to try individuals responsible for the worst crimes known to humankind.
It is a night that we can be proud of, and we can be proud of the pivotal contribution of the United Kingdom legal team to the creation of the ICC in the first place. The statute is an international agreement that results from a protracted negotiation. It is in the nature of international agreements that we cannot get all that we want. Nevertheless, the Bill is in good shape and the International Criminal Court is shaping up.
Our aim in Rome was, above all, to secure an effective court that enjoyed the maximum international support. That was achieved to an extent that exceeded our


expectations. Even better, support for the court has been maintained and has even grown since Rome. More than two thirds of the international community has signed the ICC statute and we are encouraging all countries to do so. We are pleased that the United States is a signatory and we hope that it will in time also ratify the statute. We will continue to encourage all those who have not signed to do so.
I know that many right hon. and hon. Members will be disappointed at being unable to take part in the debate. I think that for the first time in my 14 years, we have had a reflective and thoughtful debate on both sides of the Chamber. We have had a good turnout, with Members queueing to contribute. It is a pity that we do not have more time, but tonight's proceedings have reflected the seriousness with which the House is taking the matter. This is an international step forward.
Detailed questions have been asked and I will do my best to respond to them in the brief time available to me. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) referred to the relationship between the international criminal courts that the previous Government set up in Rwanda and Yugoslavia. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the provisions were embedded in domestic law. Two Orders in Council were passed under the previous Government in 1996 in accordance with the United Nations Act 1946.
I do not have time to go through all the right hon. Gentleman's amendments in detail, but he mentioned clause 65. Command responsibility is a well-established principle of international law that reflects the hierarchical structure of disciplined forces, but the language of clause 65 is taken directly from the ICC statute. There is nothing new or difficult in the language, but to exclude it or adopt different language would mean that a criminal responsibility could be prosecuted by the ICC but not by our domestic courts. In other words, ironically, it would increase the possibility of our service personnel being brought before the ICC. It is important for the protection of the armed forces that the test for command responsibility, under the statute and the Bill, remains the same. I look forward to the detail of any amendment that may be tabled on this point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said that it was important to welcome the Bill warmly and to be enthusiastic about it. He mentioned retrospection, and I shall refer to that later. He said also that we should be building a culture of justice against a culture of impunity; that was a good summary of the Bill.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). This may have been his last speech in the House and he said that the Bill was one of the most important that he had debated in his 35 years here. He always makes thoughtful and reflective speeches, with his legal expertise on these matters, and we thank him for his contribution. He mentioned that he introduced the Tokyo Convention Bill, which started these debates some years ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) brought a wide-ranging historical perspective to the debate and showed that the purpose of the court will be to fulfil the historic ambition of

United Nations of nearly 50 years ago. We are getting there. He mentioned residence, and I shall return to that point.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) spoke of the noble objectives of the Bill, and that has been an important part of the debate. We must not lose sight of the primary objectives. We must try to get the details right, but keep the objectives in mind. We are continuing to deal with difficult questions and terrible decisions in the context of international law, but we must get this international agreement up and running.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) reminded us that we must learn from the Holocaust, and from events in Rwanda, Cambodia and elsewhere. She also injected a note of urgency. The purpose of our activity tonight, and of taking the Bill into Committee, is that we are seeking to be one of the first 60 signatories to help to shape the court and to be involved in the process of saying who the judges are and what its procedures are—but we must be at the table.

Mr. Blunt: The Minister has just said that we want to be one of the first 60 signatories in order to have a say in who the judges are. Will he confirm that we will have no more say than any or the other initial signatories?

Mr. Battle: If we are not one of the 60, we will not have a say at all. I sensed a worrying theme in the hon. Gentleman's speech and interventions; he was worried about foreign judges, rather than about getting the court up and running.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) raised a serious question about the rights of the accused. We will return to the matter in Committee, but part 6 and clauses 55 and 67 provide safeguards for the accused.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who has participated in such debates before, used a helpful phrase—"international institution-building". We are doing the best we can in the circumstances. I will return to the questions of universal jurisdiction and discretion that she mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has campaigned to tackle human rights abuses for some years and I know that he sees the Bill as a step forward. It will give hope to people whose human rights are abused. Incidentally, we can both welcome the fact that the UN High Commissioner has applied to extend her term for a further year.
The question of residence came up in several speeches, along with that of universal jurisdiction. We have a long-established practice of taking universal jurisdiction only as part of international law. The problem is that the statute does not require universal jurisdiction, so we do not think that we should go it alone and unilaterally say that we will do it all if the court will not do it. We could debate that in further detail, but the principle is that we would not stand in the way of extradition to another state, as provided for in the Bill, or of transfer to the ICC, but we cannot set ourselves up as a substitute court and go further than is proposed in the statute.
The concept of residence has clear links to UK law, including the War Crimes Act 1991 and the Sex Offenders Act 1997. There is a term in our law that is not the same as "presence" in the Canadian law.
Conservative Members stress their concerns about the armed forces. There is a fundamental misunderstanding, because we do not believe that the Bill poses a threat to our armed forces, and it will have no impact on their existing rules of engagement. The ICC makes no changes to the fundamental laws of war under which our forces operate, and which I assume are part of their training.
I remind the House that the former head of the British Army legal services, Major-General Tony Rogers, wrote:
When carrying out attacks on military objectives, we are already under a treaty obligation not to cause disproportionate incidental loss and damage to civilian populations. The Geneva Conventions have been put to the test recently. I am lot aware we had any difficulties complying with our treaty obligations during the Gulf War of 1991 or the Kosovo war of 1999.
The fear that the Bill would expose our services is unjustified.
The Bill is no threat to our armed forces and it will make a real difference to the lives of potential victims. If we are seriously concerned about the court's effectiveness, the best way forward is to pass robust legislation, get the statute ratified quickly and call on other states to do the same, giving the court our full backing.
The former prosecutor for the international tribunals in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, Judge Richard Goldstone, said:
I have no doubt that the fears are without justification at all. Firstly the war crimes defined in the Rome Statute are really the most serious war crimes intentionally continued. In the second place … the ICC … will not have jurisdiction at all … over a British citizen if the British military and civil courts investigate in good faith any allegations made.
Our own law will cover the situation.
We have a real opportunity to lead the way in setting up an international framework that will deliver and hold to account those individuals worldwide who are responsible for the worst crimes against humanity. Hitherto, there has been nowhere to bring to justice the Idi Amins, Pol Pots and Saddam Husseins, and there has been nowhere for the survivors of crimes against humanity to seek redress. We owe it to the history of the House and our parliamentary democracy to contribute actively and positively to putting the court in place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — International Criminal Court Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Mr. Battle: I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]:

Standing Committee

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

2.The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.

3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 3rd May.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.

6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

Lords messages

7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

We consider that 3 May is an appropriate date for the completion of the Committee stage—as the motion sets out. Detailed arrangements for the Committee sittings will, of course, be for the Programming Sub-Committee to decide.

The Bill has already undergone much public debate and scrutiny. We invited consultation and we received more than 45 submissions from legal experts, human rights experts and professional bodies, which helped in drawing up the Bill. The Bill has undergone scrutiny in the other place. The level of concern expressed there and during the passage of the Bill to date leads us to conclude that the date we have proposed gives a reasonable time for its consideration. More important, it will allow us to get on with the Bill so that we, too, can sign up to the statute. It is important that we are among the first 60 states to sign, so that we can be part of the formative process.

I ask the House to accept the motion.

Mrs. Gillan: The way in which the Minister has just moved the motion takes my breath away. He has decided that 3 May is the appropriate date and feels that the Bill has already undergone sufficient public debate and scrutiny.
We are lucky that the Bill is even going into Committee. The Prime Minister's decision to postpone the general election has undoubtedly given us extra time in


this Session, for which I suppose we should be grateful. Only two weeks ago, it looked as though we would be unable to examine the Bill as it deserves—given the unresolved concerns that have already been expressed both in the Chamber and, earlier this year, in another place. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said in his opening remarks on Second Reading, the concerns of those whom the Bill will most affect—the armed services—should and must receive the full attention and scrutiny of the House.
The Minister claims that the Bill received full scrutiny in the other place and that the fact that it underwent a consultation process, in which 45 submissions were made, is sufficient to justify this appalling timetable motion. Once again, an intellectually bankrupt programme motion is before the House; it effectively restricts the length of time during which elected Members can discuss an important measure.
Even before the measure is out of the starting gate in this place, the Minister tries to set down the parameters that—in his view—give a reasonable time. In whose judgment is the time reasonable? Is it just that of the Minister? Is it that of his advisers? Is it that of the Government? Is it that of No. 10? Is it that of the Minister's Cabinet colleagues? Is it that of the Foreign Secretary, or indeed that of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), whose immature interventions during Second Reading added nothing to the scrutiny process?

Mr. Forth: May I try to help my hon. Friend? She speculates that the date may have been determined by No. 10. I suggest that that is most unlikely as No. 10 is incapable of deciding any date relating to anything at any time.

Mrs. Gillan: My right hon. Friend may say that, but I could not possibly comment—although we all know exactly what he means: No. 10 seems to be incapable of making a decision without consulting ex-Cabinet Ministers and various other people.
The Minister is getting hot under the collar. No doubt he will get even hotter under the collar when he realises that he could have delivered the Bill by taking a much healthier and more mature approach to the scrutiny process. He could have dealt with it in the spirit in which we have tried to co-operate, without using the heavy hand of a timetabling motion at the eleventh hour of this Government.
The Minister's argument relies on the consultation process, during which, he says, he received 45 submissions. I remind him that the original statement on the matter was made on 20 July 1998, but that it took until 25 August last year for a Bill to appear. All that time passed before this desperately required legislation, which has to be rushed through now so that Britain will be among the first 60 countries to participate, emerged. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the Minister is shouting, "Consultation, consultation, consultation." Where have I heard a word repeated three times before?
Let me remind the Minister of a few facts about the consultation. The Bill was published on 25 August, and it was announced that the consultation period would last until 12 October. The House was in recess at the time,

so Members had a fine chance to be involved in the consultation. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary pointing out that the entire process was taking place during the recess, and he very generously extended it to 27 October. He wrote to me on 9 October about that, but obviously the Department was in recess because the letter did not arrive in my office until 17 October.
The House returned on 23 October, and you, Mr. Speaker, will remember what we were doing on that day because it was a matter of great importance to yourself—we were electing the Speaker of the House. It is hard to imagine that Members would have had the opportunity thoroughly to consult and examine the Bill on the first day back, when they were electing the Speaker. In fact, the Foreign Secretary's generosity gave Members a full three days during which the House was sitting to make their submissions. When the Minister prays in aid the fact that the matter has already had sufficient public debate and scrutiny, he is trying to cheat the public of their debate and scrutiny by giving a false impression.

Mr. Maclennan: In the light of the nice remarks that the hon. Lady made about me earlier, I am somewhat reluctant to intervene, but I have to say that, if she continues in this vein, she may give sustenance to the view that is widely held by the public—which in my view is erroneous—that when the House is in recess, MPs are not working. One might draw that conclusion from the fact that neither the hon. Lady nor her party chose to give evidence to the Government during the consultation. However, it was perfectly possible to do so, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) did.

Mr. Speaker: That was a long intervention.

Mrs. Gillan: It was a great pleasure to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I assure him that he can be as nasty to me as he likes, even though I made nice remarks about him. I do not think that he was being particularly nasty; it was a gentle savaging of the cotton-wool type.
I would not want to give the impression that hon. Members do not work during the recess, but it is not outwith the bounds of possibility that certain hon. Members who work extremely hard and take their business in this place very seriously will take a few days off from time to time, and it is not outwith the bounds of reasonableness that they should do so during the recess. I feel that a Government who made such a song and dance about introducing legislation as long ago as 20 July 1998 could have managed a consultation process that fell mainly during the time when the House was sitting.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Lady's giving way on that point because she will remember that she and I debated the issue at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference during the recess in September, and I was on the winning side in saying that such legislation should be introduced. Have we been helped, yet again, by events? If it had not been for recent events, we would not have been able to debate the Bill on 3 May. There is an argument about incisiveness. Why should the Bill be rushed now that it seems we have time left to us that we did not have before?

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Indeed, I thoroughly enjoyed debating the merits


of the International Criminal Court in the forum of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference last summer. When other hon. Members were in recess, the hon. Gentleman and I were working on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Frankly, as I said in my opening remarks, this is happening by luck, not by judgment. I have no doubt that the Government are trying to slip the Bill through the House, but the fact that the general election date has been delayed to 7 June gives us an opportunity. Why has the Minister chosen the arbitrary date of 3 May? What arrogance leads him to think that he can decide the date on which we shall finish the Bill's scrutiny? What does he know that the rest of us do not? What is he privy to that he is not sharing with the House?
We must find out how the timetable fits in with the general election being called on 7 June, which we all know is the current intention—at least before something else blows the Prime Minister off course. The Bill is to leave the Standing Committee on Thursday 3 May. Monday 7 May is a bank holiday, so there will be no chance of business being conducted in the House, unless the Minister wants to change that convention. The Government think that we will be able to fit in the debate on Report on 8, 9 or 10 May—the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday—on a very tight timetable, in time to call the election on 14 May for 7 June.
In fact, the arbitrary date—3 May—that the Minister, like Solomon, has proposed in his wisdom, is the exact date that fits a possible parliamentary timetable to try to slip the Bill through quickly before an election on 7 June. How convenient. How artificially constructed. The Government have callously arranged to get whatever legislation they want, irrespective of the will of the House. To see the callous objectivity that the Government bring to the scrutiny of legislation, we need only look at the date given for the consideration of the Adoption and Children Bill. Was the date given to that Bill 3 May? That Bill was expected to fall; the general election was expected to occur before it was considered, so an arbitrary date of 12 June was set.
It is obvious that the Government are happy to allocate dates outside the timetable that they have set to Bills that they do not think essential and in reality want to block. We all know that they want to plan the political timetable to their own advantage. That can he seen clearly in this disgraceful timetable motion.
How on earth can the Minister choose the date before we know how many amendments will be tabled? What arrogance makes him think that he can second-guess the will of Members? During the Bill's consideration in another place, more than 100 serious amendments were tabled, and they took many hours to debate, raising some of the most complex and unresolved issues. Those issues still stand unresolved today.
The Minister should hang his head because despite the fact that, according to him, the Bill is supposedly perfect, after the enormously elaborate process of scrutiny to which he referred, the Government still had to amend it in the other place. That shows the irony of having an unreasonably short consultation process and then introducing a Bill that had to be amended in another place because the Government had not thought of everything. Who is to say whether more fundamental flaws in the Bill will or will not be identified? However, before we can see

the amendments, the time allowed for the Bill's passage will have been decided by a Minister who has only just taken on this brief. The hon. Gentleman is the third Minister to have handled this business since 1998. The fact that he is the third Minister to have tried to get to grips with it may explain why the Bill has not been introduced in a more timely fashion.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is developing a cogent case against the way in which the Government intend to proceed. Does she not agree that it is further evidence of the importance of changing the procedure whereby a Programming Sub-Committee meets in private and has its composition polluted by virtue of the presence of a Government Whip?

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend panders to my prejudices. My first Programming Sub-Committee, which met in secret, was a deeply unsatisfactory occasion. A powerful case has been made for re-examining the procedures that have been thrust on the House and for changing them, so that the will of the House and Members' representations are taken into consideration.
The Bill has six parts, 84 clauses and 10 schedules. By its very nature, it involves serious constitutional issues. Its fundamental aims are not the source of acrimonious dispute within the House or between the parties, but it is a large Bill by any standards and serious concerns were aired on Second Reading, by Government as well as Conservative Members.
Introducing a Bill such as this at the eleventh hour and imposing a timetable motion at this stage is quite inappropriate. The motion flies in the face of the assurances that the Foreign Secretary gave to the House. In a debate on the International Criminal Court, he said:
I deal finally with the question of ratification. This will not be a swift or fast-track process.
It certainly has not been a swift or fast-track process because the Government themselves have delayed it. However, the right hon. Gentleman added:
We are now arranging to draw up the appropriate legislation, but that legislation will be complex. It is not legislation that I would dream of asking the House to pass in a one-day sitting, as happened with the landmines treaty, because I suspect that it will contain many clauses that will give lawyers many hours of fruitful debate as it passes through the House. Therefore, it is not something which the House should imagine will be rushed through".—[Official Report, 20 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 807.]
What price that assurance today? We have a timetable motion that will give the Committee a maximum of 10 sittings before 3 May, the marvellous date that has been plucked out of the air to suit a political timetable and the convenience of the Government.
I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the Bill should not be rushed through. As the right hon. Gentleman said, five weeks of difficult and intensive negotiations led up to the Bill. The Minister is chatting away and is so disengaged from the debate that it is unbelievable, but may I ask him whether any restrictions were imposed on those negotiations at the time? Were they curtailed by a programme motion? Of course not, because that would have been ridiculous, but yet again the House faces the indignity of a forced timetable from this rotten Government.
The erosion of the democratic process under this Government seems to be inevitable. In the House these days, we are asked to deem that we have scrutinised Bills that we have not scrutinised; we truncate the scrutiny by elected Members of legislation that can affect the lives and deaths of individuals; and we refuse to allow elected representatives to fulfil their obligations. All hon. Members are obliged to contribute and do their best to improve legislation. The principles behind the programme motion show the contempt in which the Government hold the parliamentary process and the Chamber. Once again, without an apology, we have a second-rate proposal from a second-rate Government. It will come as no surprise to the Government that we will vote against it.

Mr. Eric Forth: Although the Bill may be lousy, it is substantial. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said, legislation that contains 84 clauses and 10 schedules should give us pause for thought. Without wanting to go into detail, a mere perusal draws my eye to important matters such as requests for arrest and surrender, bail and custody, entry, search and seizure, fingerprints or non-intimate samples, detention in the United Kingdom in pursuance of an ICC sentence, genocide and "mental element". There is more than enough material to require proper lengthy and detailed consideration, not least, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) explained at the outset, because the Opposition want to draw the Standing Committee's attention to substantial matters. We will want to persuade the Government that serious and proper amendments should be made before the Bill can receive our support.
If the past is anything to go by, the Bill's size, the nature of its content, and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham said all make it clear that the Committee's consideration will take some time. I assume that the Committee of Selection will meet tomorrow and the Standing Committee will sit next Tuesday. As that will be one of those funny early bunk-off days, it will not be able to deliberate at length and will not sit again until 24 and 26 April and 1 and 3 May. That leads us into interesting and worrisome territory, because 3 May might be too distant.
Let us turn the argument on its head. If the Government are serious about getting the Bill enacted, and given the Prime Minister's intention to hold the elections on 7 June—if we can believe anything he says—and hence the day when dissolution will have to take place, there is a distinct risk that it may not make progress. Frankly, that would not cause me a minute's loss of sleep.

Mr. Maude: Many of the concerns that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) raise involve the connection between the timetable and the date of the general election. As the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is in the Chamber, would it not be simpler to ask him to confirm the date? We understand that he is pulling the strings from behind the scenes and he could clear the matter up for good.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a programme motion.

Mr. Forth: What a pity, because that was getting interesting. I shall try to leave the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) out of it, unless he wants to intervene.
The date of 3 May is important, not just because its otherwise historic importance slipped by while our vacillating Prime Minister tried to make up his mind. The main question that we must consider is not why the end date is 3 May and whether the Government have made the correct calculations, but whether they have put the Bill at risk by choosing that date. I hope that they have. Worse, they are caught in a dilemma between allowing the Committee reasonable time in which to consider the Bill properly and granting the measure a reasonable opportunity of succeeding.
I believe that the Government have fallen between two stools. We will not get enough time to scrutinise and consider the Bill properly, nor will we give the measure the maximum opportunity of succeeding. That is typical of the Government, who do not understand the operation of the House. They do not care, they are not interested, and, therefore, they are in danger of getting matters tragically wrong yet again.
We have witnessed a succession of cock-ups, misjudgments and Government mishandling, which mean that Bills fail or do not receive proper consideration. If they get pushed through in a peremptory fashion, the Government have to correct them later.

Mr. Bercow: The need for urgency in legislation is greatly overstated and overrated. I speak as someone who is probably regarded as feeble, pathetic, hand-wringing, moisture-emitting and wet, because I believe that there is much merit in the Bill. There is no urgency about its passage that should prevent lengthy, civilised, detailed and comprehensive discourse on its contents for as long as necessary before deciding whether to pass ut.

Mr. Forth: That intervention is helpful because it is made by a self-confessed enthusiast for the ghastly measure. It also puts matters in context.
We have doubts about the Committee stage, but matters get materially worse on Report and Third Reading. This arrogant Government with their hobnailed boots have provided that
proceedings on consideration shall … be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
That applies regardless of other business. More emergency measures may have been tabled by then. The Government have turned the emergency into the routine in a way that we could hardly have foreseen.
Moreover, statements may be made. In your generosity, Mr. Speaker, you may grant a debate under Standing Order No. 24. The Government ignore such matters and confidently tell the House that, regardless of proceedings in Committee or intervening events, deliberations on Report and Third Reading will be completed by nine o'clock. That is outrageous for a Bill of this size, even given the truncated Committee stage for which the motion allows. Yet the Government employ that approach time and again. They are not interested in proper scrutiny; they


are relaxed about pushing through defective legislation, even on an important subject such as the Bill allegedly is to some people, and then trying to correct it later.
The Minister and his colleagues like to strut around the international stage, attend ridiculous conferences and ludicrous get-togethers and gatherings, puff out their chests and feel important. I should have thought that they would want to tell other important international figures that they had got the measure right—but no. They are so casual about even their international contacts and junketings that they do not care whether the Bill is right.
The measure will be shoved through an inadequate Committee stage, nodded through a ridiculous Report and Third Reading, and the Government assume that they will get it right. I am sorry, not for the Government, but for my country, because it is represented by such inadequates as those on the Labour Front Bench. They affect to strut around the international stage, and put us at risk of getting the measure completely wrong. That would be bad enough with a domestic matter, but with a global, galactic matter such as this, I would have thought that it was rather important to get things right.

Mrs. Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: Yes, but I am trying to conclude my speech now.

Mrs. Gillan: My right hon. Friend is making some very important points, but does he agree that one would expect the Government at least to take into account the views of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who is in his place now? On 11 December, in this Chamber, he said:
there must be proper scrutiny, as the Bill is highly technical and needs a certain legal expertise."—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 410.]
Is that not an admission that even the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee believes that there must be proper scrutiny? Moreover, the Bill is so complex that I understand that the Minister will be joined in the Committee by one of the Law Officers, which goes to show that the right hon. Member for Swansea, East is right. What does my right hon. Friend think of that?

Mr. Forth: Given the Minister's inadequacy, I am not surprised that he needs a crutch or prop, in the shape of one of his colleagues, to help him in the Committee. I certainly agree that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee is extremely influential, important and senior—

Mr. Blunt: And respected.

Mr. Forth: And respected—and we should listen to what he says.
This matter now stands exposed for what it is. It is a travesty; it is nonsense. I hope that the House will throw the programme motion out so that we have the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill properly and do it justice.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I have never been described as a crutch or a prop before—but in all humility, I have to admit that I agree with those wise words that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee uttered last December.

There is a certain easy familiarity about our debates on programme motions, and I sometimes feel rather as if I am watching one of those bad films and saying, "Isn't this where I came in?". The cast is almost invariably the same. Sometimes the arguments are good and sometimes they are bad. I suspect that tonight they are rather more flimsy than normal—although that does not stop the Opposition dipping into their pool of hyperbole and railing at the Government. Indeed, I believe that as his hyperbole rose to an ever higher pitch, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggested that the programme motion was not only a gross disservice, but a "galactic" disservice to the House.
I shall not be unkind to the hon. Member for Chesham because we all like her, but she was trying to make bricks without straw. I was reminded of a friend who, very nervously, appeared before the Court of Appeal for the first time. After he had been speaking for a quarter of an hour or so, one of the judges said, "Mr. X, is that your best point?". My friend quivered, "My lord, it is my only point."
Similarly, I thought that the hon. Member for Chesham had one good point, which was that the Government were at fault in delaying the publication of the Bill. There may have been good technical reasons for that, because of the pressure from other directions on the parliamentary draftsmen—but the Government were at fault because of the very long delay. We in the Foreign Affairs Committee pointed that out. Indeed, for some time we had been urging the Government to get on with it.
The hon. Lady said, among other things, that two weeks ago it did not look as if the Bill would have the time that it deserved. Since then, however, things have changed. I do not know to what extent the change was influenced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), but now we have at least the possibility of having enough time, if we act reasonably. The hon. Lady admitted that we now had the opportunity to hold at least 10 sittings. I would have thought that adequate, especially as the Opposition will be able to select the key elements debated within that time, and in view of the fact not only that there has been considerable input from outside specialists during the consultation period—as great, probably, as that regarding any Bill of this nature—but that there has been a very learned legal trawl through the Bill in another place.

Mrs. Gillan: I would just like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that I am the Member for Chesham and Amersham. The "and Amersham" is very important.
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, even though there is a possibility of our having 10 sittings in Committee, there is no constitutional guarantee that any of those sittings will take place? During our deliberations on the International Development Bill, when no Chairman was available to chair the Committee, we lost some time from the scrutiny of that Bill. That time could not be put back into the process later. So even though it might appear that there will be 10 sittings, there might not be. That point was partly made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) when he spoke about emergency legislation, SO24s, or whatever, in the House possibly bringing to a halt the anticipated process. Will the right hon. Member for


Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) accept that there is no guarantee of 10 sittings taking place and that the programme motion is therefore bankrupt?

Mr. Anderson: May I say first that I meant no disrespect to the good people of Amersham, and I hope that the hon. Lady will convey my personal regrets to them for failing to mention them?
Of course there is no guarantee, as the right hon. Member for Chislehurst—

Mr. Bercow: And Bromley.

Mr. Anderson: I am sorry. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will convey my apologies to Bromley.
Of course there is no guarantee of 10 sittings, but the Government would lay themselves open to criticism if they did not give adequate time for debate. I hope that some parliamentarians on the Government Benches would be equally ready to criticise them if they did not provide that time. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst pointed out that there could be a number of occasions on which that time might be truncated because of statements, and so on. However, this is a matter of good faith. Clearly the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has no faith at all in the Government, but I tend to have a little more than her.
The key foreign policy point is that if we were not to meet the deadline of 3 May, the Bill would not pass during this Parliament.

Mr. Forth: Good.

Mr. Anderson: That, however, would cause considerable difficulty and would be against the interests of this country. The Bill would then have to be revived in the next Parliament, and might not become law thereafter until, perhaps, the end of this year. There would be considerable slippage, and all the advantages of the Bill's becoming law—in terms of providing a model and setting a precedent for other countries, of showing what we can do, and of being among the first 60 states to ratify the agreement—would be lost. That would do a great disservice to this country. I believe that we have sufficient time—Goldilocks-like: not too long, not too short—in the 10 sittings adequately to scrutinise the Bill and to ensure that this country honours its international obligations.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: This is a serious debate on an extremely important Bill. The right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson)—I shall not forget the "East"—may have recognised that many of us on the Opposition Benches feel that this is yet another example of the Government's arrogance in wishing to steamroller through legislation without giving it proper scrutiny. That has become a hallmark of this Government, and every time they move a programme motion we shall speak against it, even though the journalists have gone to bed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) was absolutely right to expose the Government's intention to shoe-horn the Bill through in time for the general election. Of course the right hon.

Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is here, but he is not here just to report back to the Prime Minister. He is also here to report back to Mr. Trevor Kavanagh, the man who really makes the decisions about when general elections are to be held.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham was absolutely right to point out that we have not had the opportunity properly to scrutinise the legislation today and my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Foreign Secretary, has already said that we shall table a number of amendments in Committee. The idea that they can be debated in 10 sittings and receive proper scrutiny in the House on Report was demolished by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who said that only four hours may be available to the House to consider amendments that may have been accepted in Committee. However, I have to say that the chances of amendments being accepted are remote, given the way that the Government treated the Bill in the other place.
The Bill is extremely important and it has huge potential consequences for our armed forces. The first duty of the House is to ensure that the nation is properly defended. That means ensuring that our troops have the equipment that they need and proper conditions in which they can serve their country and perform the duties laid on them by this or any Government. This Government have been keen to deploy our troops, so the potential consequences for them when they go into battle are serious indeed.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please confine his remarks to the programme motion?

Mr. Howarth: Thank you for reminding me of that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my point is that although there are serious issues at stake, even some Members who were in the Chamber—let alone those who saw how many hon. Members wanted to speak but left to fulfil other responsibilities after taking the view that they had no chance of getting in—did not have the opportunity to contribute.
Many Members want to speak on the matter. They also want to know how the Bill will be dealt with in Committee and whether the Government will accept amendments tabled by the Opposition. If the Government are not prepared to accept amendments, we shall have not 10 sittings, but perhaps only four or four and a half hours in which to consider the Bill on Report. Certainly, five and a half hours will be available at the absolute maximum. That is a grave discourtesy to the House and a grave discourtesy to our armed forces, which will be much affected by the Bill.

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government consider their proposed timetable adequate because they envisage not no debate on amendments, but merely, in the style of the Foreign Secretary, their dismissal? Will not their approach be characterised, as was the Foreign Secretary's speech, by arrogance, presumption and disdain for any alternative point of view?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend's lexicon of adjectives with which to describe the Foreign Secretary is rather meagre. He could provide many more.


The debate is extremely important for another reason: the United States has not ratified the treaty. We have not had the opportunity to discourse at length on that matter. Some senior figures in the United States have described the International Criminal Court—

It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 310, Noes 137.

Division No. 173]
[10.44 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clwyd, Ann


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ainger, Nick
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Coleman, Iain



Colman, Tony


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Connarty, Michael


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Ashton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Atherton, Ms Candy
Corston, Jean


Atkins, Charlotte
Cousins, Jim


Austin, John
Cox, Tom


Bailey, Adrian
Cranston, Ross


Banks, Tony
Crausby, David


Barnes, Harry
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Battle, John
Cummings, John


Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Darvill, Keith


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davidson, Ian


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benton, Joe
Dawson, Hilton


Bermingham, Gerald
Dean, Mrs Janet


Berry, Roger
Dismore, Andrew


Best, Harold
Dobbin, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Donohoe, Brian H


Blizzard, Bob
Doran, Frank


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Drew, David


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bradshaw, Ben
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Browne, Desmond
Edwards, Huw


Buck, Ms Karen
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Burgon, Colin
Ennis, Jeff


Butler, Mrs Christine
Etherington, Bill


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Flint, Caroline


Cann, Jamie
Flynn, Paul


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Casale, Roger
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caton, Martin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Cawsey, Ian
Foulkes, George


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fyfe, Maria


Chaytor, David
Galloway, George


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gapes, Mike


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)



Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Godsiff, Roger


Clelland, David
Goggins, Paul





Golding, Mrs Llin
McFall, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNulty, Tony


Grogan, John
MacShane, Denis


Hain, Peter
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McWalter, Tony


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWilliam, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hanson, David
Mallaber, Judy


Healey, John
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hendrick, Mark
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Heppell, John
Martlew, Eric


Hesford, Stephen
Maxton, John


Hill, Keith
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hinchliffe, David
Meale, Alan


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Merron, Gillian


Hoey, Kate
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hope, Phil
Miller, Andrew


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moffatt, Laura


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howells, Dr Kim
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mudie, George


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mullin, Chris


Humble, Mrs Joan
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hurst, Alan
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hutton, John
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Illsley, Eric
O'Hara, Eddie


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Olner, Bill


Jamieson, David
O'Neill, Martin


Jenkins, Brian
Organ, Mrs Diana


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pearson, Ian



Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pond, Chris


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pope, Greg


Joyce, Eric
Pound, Stephen


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kemp, Fraser
Primarolo, Dawn


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prosser, Gwyn


Khabra, Piara S
Purchase, Ken


Kidney, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rammell, Bill


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rapson, Syd


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Raynsford, Nick


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Laxton, Bob



Leslie, Christopher
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Levitt, Tom
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rowlands, Ted


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Roy, Frank


Linton, Martin
Ruane, Chris


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ruddock, Joan


Lock, David
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Love, Andrew
Salter, Martin


McAvoy, Thomas
Sarwar, Mohammad


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Savidge, Malcolm


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Shaw, Jonathan



Sheerman, Barry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Shipley, Ms Debra


Macdonald, Calum
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)






Skinner, Dennis
Truswell, Paul


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)



Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tynan, Bill


Soley, Clive
Vis, Dr Rudi


Spellar, John
Walley, Ms Joan


Squire, Ms Rachel
Ward, Ms Claire


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wareing, Robert N


Steinberg, Gerry
Watts David


Stevenson, George
White, Brian


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wicks, Malcolm


Stinchcombe, Paul
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Williams Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stringer Graham
Winnick, David


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wood Mike



Woodward, Shaun


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Woolas, Phil


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Worthington, Tony


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)



Timms, Stephen
Tellers for the Ayes:


Touhig, Don
Mr. Graham Allen and


Trickett, Jon
Mr. Clive Betts.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Fallon, Michael


Allan, Richard
Flight, Howard


Amess, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Fox, Dr Liam


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fraser, Christopher


Bercow, John
Gale, Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garnier, Edward


Blunt, Crispin
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Boswell, Tim
Gibb, Nick


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gidley, Sandra


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Brady, Graham
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Brazier, Julian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gray, James


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Green, Damian


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John


Butterfill, John
Grieve, Dominic


Cash, William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hammond, Philip



Hawkins, Nick


Chope, Christopher
Hayes, John


Clappison, James
Heald, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Horam, John



>Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Collins, Tim
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Cran, James
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, Rt Hon David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Duncan, Alan
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan Smith, Iain
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Nigel
Letwin, Oliver


Fabricant, Michael
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)





Lidington, David
St Aubyn, Nick


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sanders, Adrian


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Loughton, Tim
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Luff, Peter
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Swayne, Desmond


McLoughlin, Patrick
Syms, Robert


Madel, Sir David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maples, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


May, Mrs Theresa
Townend, John


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Tyrie, Andrew


Norman, Archie
Viggers, Peter


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Walter, Robert


Öpik, Lembit
Waterson, Nigel


Ottaway, Richard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Page, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Paice, James
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wilkinson, John


Prior, David
Willetts, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Willis, Phil


Rendel, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Yeo, Tim


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)



Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tellers for the Noes:


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Ruffley, David
and


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Mr. Owen Paterson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order N0. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
That, for the purpose: of any Act resulting from the International Criminal Court Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the Act;
(b) the payment out of such money or the Consolidated Fund of sums in respect of contributions or benefits in respect of judicial pensions arising in connection with the appointment of the holder of a United Kingdom judicial office as a judge of the International Criminal Court;
(c) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

Christmas Day (Trading) Bill [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.
As drafted, the Christmas Day (Trading)—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly so that this debate, can commence?

Mr. O'Brien: As drafted, the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill may have some small expenditure implications for the Treasury purse, and a money resolution is therefore required. The small amount of extra expenditure would be in respect of inspectors to enforce the prohibition on the opening of large shops on Christmas day.
Only a handful of such shops have so far opened on Christmas day, and enforcement should be assisted by the fact that advance local publicity would almost certainly be required if large shops intended to open in future. Although the implications are relatively small, it is none the less appropriate to put this motion before the House.

11 pm

Mr. Eric Forth: At least the Minister has taken the trouble, on this occasion, to come to the House and give a brief explanation of the money resolution. For that, I suppose we should be grateful, but I am not sure that the Minister said enough to persuade me that the resolution should be approved—at least, not without some further thought.
The Bill has far-reaching ramifications. It may be short, which is commendable in a private Member's Bill, but it has substantial implications. Clause 1 is entitled "Large shops not to open on Christmas Day", and that gives a fair idea of what the Bill is about. The schedule to the Bill gives some indication of the ramifications.
I shall pass over what I believe is a grammatical error in the first line of the schedule, which states:
It shall be the duty on every local authority to enforce within their area".
I should have thought that the phrase "its area" would have been more appropriate. Perhaps we should vote money for literacy lessons for parliamentary draftsmen and Home Office officials, so that the Bill could be got right. That would be a proper use for money flowing from the money resolution.
I exonerate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) from any blame for that error, as I suspect that the Bill was drafted either by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers or by the Government, or a bit of both.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I do not always rise to the right hon. Gentleman's bait,

but I cannot let him get away with something on which he is totally wrong. The Bill was not drafted by USDAW or the Government.

Mr. Forth: In that case, the hon. Lady must plead guilty to the grammatical error that I have pointed out, but I shall not hold that against her.
The resolution would allow the effects of the responsibilities outlined in the schedule to be carried out. The schedule states, grammar notwithstanding, that local authorities are to be given an additional responsibility to enforce the provisions of clause 1(1) in their areas. It continues:
For the purposes of these duties under paragraph 1 … it shall be the duty of every local authority to appoint inspectors".
It adds that those inspectors may already have been appointed as inspectors by the local authority. However, they may not have been so appointed, which means that additional inspectors might have to be appointed so that local authorities can properly discharge the duties laid on them by the Bill.
Therefore, the Minister was not right to brush aside or minimise the Bill's financial impact. How many inspectors would be required adequately to police shops on Christmas day? People paid by the hour would be on double or triple time. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will know more about that sort of thing than I, and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich certainly knows a lot about it. Perhaps she will tell the House later in the debate whether inspectors would be paid triple time on Christmas day as they go around ensuring that all the large stores do not open in defiance of the Bill.
Straight away we have the potential for considerable expenditure. I presume also that inspectors would be on expenses, so they would be paid triple time and expenses in order properly to discharge their duties. One can just imagine a veritable army of inspectors plodding around large stores on Christmas day to ensure that they were not opening in defiance of the Bill.
That is bad enough. When we come to paragraph 3 of the schedule, which states:
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 2 to the 1994 Act (powers of entry and obstruction of inspectors)",
we realise that we are getting into much more serious territory. Here we have the possibility—the financial implications can only be guessed at, but that is what we are here to do—of inspectors seeking to enter the premises to see whether they are open. Presumably, premises would be quite easy to enter if they were open, and if they were not open, the inspectors would not have to enter them, so the provision may be otiose.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that the Chamber is not the place for doing work that is not to do with the debate.

Mr. Forth: We are faced with a conundrum as to whether the powers of entry and obstruction would carry with them any financial implications. I am, I confess, somewhat confused as to whether that would be the case. I suspect that the inspectors, frequently mentioned in the schedule, would be the Bill's largest financial implication. However, we should take into account a contrary factor that may contribute to a minimising of the financial implications.
As right hon. and hon. Members will know, because they will have studied the Bill very closely, clause 1(3) provides that, if subsection (1) is contravened,
the occupier of the shop shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50,000.
Were that to be the case, the Bill could be almost self-financing. The fines imposed on large stores opening in contravention of the Act—were the Bill to reach the statute book—might well pay for the peripatetic inspectors. We would be in the rather satisfactory position of the shops opening in defiance of the Act, being found out by the wandering inspectors and paying the fine, which would go to pay the triple time and expenses earned by the inspectors.
The whole thing would have an elegant simplicity, and the self-financing aspect might well render the money resolution otiose. Perhaps we could talk ourselves into not passing the money resolution in the secure knowledge that the Bill would be self-financing. I do not know whether the Minister, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich or some of my colleagues find that an attractive idea. However, I think that these matters should be considered before we rush into deciding whether to vote for or against the motion.
All in all, we should be grateful to the hon. Lady for giving us a chance to consider the Bill. She can be sure that we shall have a good old go at it on Report when it comes out of Committee—I envisage most of a day spent debating it then. However, we may want to give a little more thought as to whether the money resolution is as onerous as I first thought.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the right hon. Gentleman's objection to the Bill that he would prefer people to work on Christmas day when it does not fall on a Sunday?

Mr. Forth: My preference is for people to work whenever they want to. I am very keen on people doing lots of work on lots of occasions. I am very much opposed to heavy-handed interventionist regulation, especially when it is driven by trade unions and especially when it would deny people the freedom to choose to work on any day of the year on which they wanted to do so. That is my view, and it remains unaltered.

Mr. John Bercow: I fear that my right hon. Friend's prognosis is a triumph of optimism over reality. I challenge him to tell me whether he can enumerate, in the course of a 10-minute speech, the number of occasions on which a money resolution has proved to be self-financing. As the declaration of interests is of paramount importance in our proceedings, may I just say that I speak from some experience on the subject of working on Christmas day? For 20 years at least, I worked on Christmas day teaching my mother how to play tennis, which was an extremely burdensome way in which to make a living.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend seems none the worse for the experience.

Dr. Julian Lewis: You should see his mother.

Mr. Forth: We shall leave my hon. Friend's mother out of it for the time being.

The money resolution has more to it than might at first have met the eye, and it illustrates the value of these debates. I pay tribute to the Minister because, all too often, his colleagues believe that these matters should just be quietly nodded through or do not require explanation. However, the Minister—typically of him—has taken the trouble to come to the House and set out his view briefly.

Mr. Edward Leigh: My right hon. Friend has paid a generous tribute to the Minister. Perhaps I missed it, but has anyone explained to us how much the measure will cost?

Mr. Forth: Perish the thought; my hon. Friend asks too much. We cannot expect Ministers to put figures on these matters. Money resolutions are essentially blank cheques; the Government say that they need some money, but they do not know how much. They ask us to sign a cheque, hoping that the grateful taxpayer is looking the other way, not noticing what is going on. Our job is to try to winkle out of Ministers how much is involved. We usually fail, which is why I hope that we shall vote against the motion tonight, if only on the basis that we do not believe in blank cheques.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I served on the Committee that examined the Sunday Trading Act 1994. I remember at the time that the Shopping Hours Reform Council tried to argue with me that there ought to be some compromise on the issue. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that it should be up to people to decide for themselves when they can or cannot work.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the money resolution and that debate should be limited to that.

Mr. Fabricant: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was just outlining the position. During our debates on the 1994 Act, I was in discussion with the John Lewis Partnership, which is owned by the 45,000 partners who work for the company. There was considerable debate as to whether stores should open on Sundays. The John Lewis Partnership's stores remained closed on Sundays, including its Waitrose supermarkets, whereas other stores, such as Tesco—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman once again—his contribution would be far more appropriate to a Second Reading debate than to a debate on a money resolution.

Mr. Fabricant: I agree, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would argue that some of these points have direct relevance to the motion.
I am surprised that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst did not mention clause 1(2)(b), which refers to
shops occupied by persons observing the Jewish religion".
Those shops would be exempt, but how are inspectors to know—this is directly relevant to the cost of enforcing the Bill—whether the shopkeeper is of the Jewish religion? We discussed that at some length in Committee on the 1994 Act.
We are approaching the time of Pesach, the Jewish Passover. Should people be exempt—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is the third occasion on which I have had to remind the hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to the money resolution.

Mr. Fabricant: Inspectors have to be paid for by the state. How are they to ascertain whether a shop is owned by people of the Jewish religion? It is no longer an easy point. The Jewish religion is not a race

Dr. Julian Lewis: Let me assist my hon. Friend. He and I are both members of the Jewish religion. Does he not think that the mezuzah placed on the doorway of premises occupied by Jewish people might just give the inspectors a clue?

Mr. Fabricant: I disagree. I do not want to be ruled out of order for a fourth time, but let me say that I do not have a mezuzah on any of my properties.

Dr. Lewis: Shame.

Mr. Fabricant: I am none the less of the Jewish religion. I believe that a cost will—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. These matters could well be debated in Committee rather than under this resolution.

Mr. Fabricant: I am sure that they could be debated in Committee, but this matter relates directly to the money resolution. There is no question but that, if there is difficulty in ascertaining the ownership and the religion of the owners of a shop that may be open on Christmas day, let alone Pesach, Chanukah or any other Jewish holiday, a cost will arise. However, I will move on from that point, as I have explored it to the limit of your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I take my right hon. Friend's point about schedule 3, on powers of entry: it does seem otiose. There is a very large John Lewis store in Bluewater. The employees there voted two or three years ago to open on a Sunday, which they are permitted to do under the 1994 Act. Had they voted differently, the store would have remained closed on a Sunday, which reinforces my right hon. Friend's point that it is up to the employees in many organisations. Indeed, it is up to the employees in all organisations not to be victimised if they—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are fully aware of the provisions of other pieces of legislation. Once again, will the hon. Gentleman please confine his remarks to the resolution?

Mr. Fabricant: My point is that there are costs arising from inspectors' powers of entry. My right hon. Friend said that inspectors have to be paid for, and explored the matter at some length.

Mr. Bercow: Is not the essence of our objection to the money resolution that we have a preference for specificity, whereas the Government insist, apparently, on

generality? The modern and rather vulgar term is "voting for a pig in a poke". Does my hon. Friend, who is of an historical turn of mind, agree that the words "riddle", "mystery" and "enigma" readily spring to mind?

Mr. Fabricant: Indeed. My hon. Friend knows, because we have served together on several Committees, that I object to the blank cheque syndrome. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, the motion is a blank cheque. Yet again, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is asking the House to consider such matters—although we are delighted to see my constituency neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who introduced the resolution. However, if we were to ask the Under-Secretary what the costs of the resolution would be, I doubt that he could answer because, as my right hon. Friend has already pointed out, many such money motions are not costed.
The main point of the Bill has direct relevance to the resolution. Paragraph 3 of the schedule refers to the inspectors' powers of entry. It is clear that no analysis has been made of the number of inspectors that may be required; of the wages that they might have to be paid; or of whether the inspectors might be on double, triple or even quadruple time. As my right hon. Friend pointed out—and as I was about to say before my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) intervened—if a store such as John Lewis at Bluewater has chosen to be open, I cannot see why there should be a power of entry. If a large department store is open, people can go in and see that for themselves, so why does the state have to pay—more to the point why does the taxpayer have to pay—for inspectors under the motion? I have to ask that question.
I confess that I support the Bill itself; it is promoted by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for whom I have the greatest respect—as she knows. However, I must ask why the Bill needs a money resolution. The matter is disturbing, because when the Under-Secretary moved the resolution, he gave no reason for its introduction.

Mr. Graham Brady: I fear that my hon. Friend may be missing the point. Even though the shop in question would clearly be open to the public as regards its trading area, surely the powers of entry under the Bill would apply to private areas—perhaps the offices or staff areas. It may be necessary to obtain access to those areas to ascertain whether the proprietors are of the Jewish faith.

Mr. Fabricant: I have to disagree with my hon. Friend—this is a rare occasion. He will note that paragraph 3 of the schedule relates to schedule 2 of the Sunday Trading Act 1994, which refers specifically to whether the selling floor is open. That makes my point: if the selling floor is open, that is clear for everyone to see. We do not need inspectors; nor do we need to give them powers. That begs the question: why is motion No. 7 on the Order Paper? Why is a money resolution needed for the Bill?

Mr. Brady: I readily admit my error and my hon. Friend's superior knowledge of the Bill, and I am grateful to him for making that point. He is asking whether it is necessary to have inspectors at all and, therefore, whether


the resolution is necessary. Has it occurred to him that given that the stores involved doubtless advertise the fact that they will be open on the day in question, that fact could be ascertained from the advertisements, without the need to retain inspectors on Christmas day?

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes a powerful, sensible point that directly relates to the cost of implementing this laudable Bill. An inspector need not be employed if it is apparent to all whether a shop is open. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst takes exception to my support for the Bill, and I can understand that. Nevertheless, I do not believe that inspectors are necessary to ensure that it is implemented.
I come now to clause 2, which relates directly to the money resolution. It refers to the 1994 Act and the expressions "large shop", "retail customers" and "shop", which should have the meaning given to them by paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Act. I may be wrong, but I recall that a large shop is defined as 5,000 sq m.

Mr. Bercow: Feet.

Mr. Fabricant: I wondered whether it was feet. I recall that the original definition given by the Shopping Hours Reform Council was in feet, but sadly—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman surely knows that this is in no way related to the money resolution that we are discussing.

Mr. Fabricant: The argument about whether the measurement is in feet or metres has nothing to do with the money resolution, as you rightly say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the exact size of a shop has every relevance. What if a shop were on the margin? Would an inspector be expected to go into John Lewis at Bluewater, if I may give that example again? May I say that I do not have to declare an interest—I have no involvement whatever with the John Lewis Partnership, other than having many friends who work for it. Are the inspectors meant to enter the store and measure the size of the trading floor? If they are—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The simple answer to that question is no. We are discussing the money resolution, which has nothing to do with the size of the store.

Mr. John Redwood: Would my hon. Friend like to say that he fears that one of the big problems with the money resolution is that the figures that have been given are lamentably lacking and likely to be totally wrong? We have seen that so many times with the regulatory rubbish that the Government come out with. They tell us that it will not be very costly, and then a year or two later we discover that it is massively costly. Would my hon. Friend like to give the House his thoughts on that point?

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend makes a relevant, salient point, as always. What would be the cost of a team of inspectors going into the menswear department of John

Lewis at Bluewater and measuring the floor size? If the floor size were such that it was not defined as a large shop, the inspectors would be acting ultra vires. The Home Office could be prosecuted, the Minister could be dragged before the courts and there could be a judicial review. All those costs would come under the terms of the resolution.
My point, which I want to make very clearly so that there is no misunderstanding, is that the definition of "large shop" is important to the cost covered by the money resolution. If there were any doubt, an inspector would have to determine whether the shop was large, in which case it would come within the ambit of the Bill, or whether it was small, as defined by the 1994 Act, in which case it would not. Someone will have to determine the size of the shop. In case of dispute, someone will have to measure the selling area, and that will cost money.
I challenge the Minister to tell the House precisely how much the Bill will cost to implement. Let there be no doubt that a cost is always entailed when the Government introduce a Bill—or, indeed, when a private Member introduces a Bill with Government support. The money does not come from a bottomless bucket. The cost is not borne by the Government—it is borne by you, Madam Speaker; it is borne by I—

Mr. Redwood: Me.

Mr. Fabricant: I am sorry, I should have said that it is borne by me. I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for correcting me. The preposition is always followed by the accusative.

Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fabricant: I am summing up, but I shall give way.

Mr. Bercow: Far be it from me to interrupt my hon. Friend's oration—or, more particularly, what might be described as his peroration—but does he agree that the lacuna in the money resolution is that it is as gloriously vague on the cost to the taxpayer, as is clause 3(1) on the likely cost to the retailer?

Mr. Fabricant: There is more than one lacuna; there are several lacunae. That is the problem—"there's the rub." Yet again, the taxpayer has to cough up the cost of a Bill. Once again, when challenged to tell us the cost, the Minister is unable to do so. He is unable even to give us an order of magnitude. Does he think that the Bill will cost the taxpayer £10,000, £100,000, £1 million or £10 million a year, or will it cost more than that? The Minister benevolently smiles at me, but let Hansard and the people note that there is no indication of what the Bill will cost to implement.
I believe that not just the John Lewis Partnership but all organisations must, in effect, have the co-operation of their staff to determine whether to open on Sundays—which is dealt with under the 1994 Act—or, if the Bill is enacted, whether a shop opens on Christmas day. Without the co-operation of the staff, shops, especially large ones, cannot open on those days. I have to question whether it is necessary to have inspectors, whether they need powers of entry, whether rules against obstruction should exist


and whether the inspectors will have to measure the size of shop floors to determine whether they fall within the ambit of the Bill.
If the Minister were to assure the House that inspectors are not necessary, or that there would be a small number of them, it would have a direct impact on the resolution. Clearly, with few or no inspectors, there would not be a major consequence on the taxpayer. However, if the Minister envisages teams of inspectors marching around the country with their measuring tapes, paid on double, triple or quadruple time, determining whether shops are large under the terms of the 1994 Act, that would place an appropriately large cost on the taxpayer.
As I was saying about five minutes ago in my peroration, Madam Deputy Speaker, we in the House should always remember that the Government do not stump up the money for such Bills and that the state does not stump up the money for them; it is you and me and, more importantly, our constituents whom we represent.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I shall be brief. These debates serve a useful purpose—after all, Parliament was created to hold the Executive to account on money; that is what we are about. Often a worthy Bill—this is a worthy Bill—goes through because there is no great opposition to it. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is."] There is some opposition to the Bill, because my hon. Friends make that clear, even though the fashionable view may be that it is distasteful to trade on Christmas day.

Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Leigh: I will, but I was just getting into my stride.

Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend aware that when there was a vote on the Bill, 37 out of 659 Members of Parliament voted for it?

Mr. Leigh: I was happy to assist my right hon. Friend in testing the will of the House. On money resolutions, on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, it is important that people outside know that the House has properly debated the issues and that a considerable number of Members have bothered to turn up to consider and vote for the Bills. However small or worthy a Bill, it is right that we should have a propel debate on its money resolution and hold the Executive to account. That is why we are here.
What worries me is that a convention has grown up in recent years—I do not blame this Government entirely—that private Members' Bills that entail the expenditure of public moneys can be introduced in the. House. In the long term, large sums of public moneys may be involved. Previously, it was generally understood that the Executive—and not private Members—would introduce Bills that entailed the expenditure of public moneys. That is why we have our procedures for private Members' Bills. Now, year after year and month after month, private Members bring Bills to the House and the Executive have to step in to provide money for those Bills. I am not sure that that is the right way to proceed. If the Executive get involved, it is incumbent on them to provide a full explanation of what they are doing.
The resolution is framed in the usual format, but no information is given. We are completely in the dark as to what moneys will be expended on promoting the Bill. I do not blame the Government, because such motions have gone through Parliament in this form for many years, but we might have expected the Minister to explain the cost of the measure. That is not difficult. The Bill involves trading on one day—Christmas day occurs once a year—so we should have a fair idea of which stores are involved. Although the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) about the size of the stores caused some merriment, it was perfectly serious. It is not impossible for the Government to work out roughly and in broad terms what the Bill might cost. Is that an unreasonable question for Parliament to ask?
Will the Bill cost a few thousand pounds because it involves a few inspectors? Perhaps it will not be necessary for any inspectors to be on the road on Christmas day because, once the Bill comes into force, no large stores might want to take on the Government. Therefore, the costs might be absolutely minimal. Would it not have been easier for the Minister, in a few brief opening remarks, to have made that clear to the House?
The Minister could have said that it would be an easy Bill to administer and that he did not expect any extra expense to be incurred by local government or central Government, so the cost of the measure would be minimal. However, he provided no details at all. Alternatively, he might have said that the cost might be £100,000, £500,000 or £1 million—it would have been nice for Parliament to have been told.

Mr. Bercow: I wish to challenge my hon. Friend about the money resolution. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I regard the Bill as a miserable measure, despite the magnificence of its mother, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Will my hon. Friend help me to evaluate the money resolution by saying whether he thinks that the proceeds of fines levied under clause 1(3) will be ring-fenced to offset pound for pound and penny for penny the costs incurred elsewhere to the Exchequer?

Mr. Leigh: No, of course they will not. It would have been nice had the Government made that clear. I should be amazed if the proceeds were ring-fenced. Presumably, fines incurred on Sunday or Christmas day traders will go into the general Exchequer pot and be lost. Again, there is a lack of oversight. It is no good Ministers saying that the Bill is small and affects only one day so it is not important, because it is the principle that is at stake. Parliament has a right to demand further and better particulars.

Mr. David Davis: Will my hon. Friend comment on the socialist heresy advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who suggested that if the money from fines is ring-fenced—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member. I am sure that it is an oversight not to face the Chair.

Mr. Davis: I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was shocked by the suggestion about ring-fencing


the fine money to finance the proposal. That would create a self-funding regulatory agency, of which we would disapprove, and would remove from Parliament the right of approval of such financial burdens.

Mr. Leigh: The gradual enlargement of the principle of ring fencing is regrettable. Many people in local government are alarmed—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the motion, which is about additional costs to be incurred because of the Bill. It is not about ring fencing.

Mr. Leigh: I take your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker. There will clearly be additional costs. All we want is to be given more information in this short debate.
The tenor of some remarks was that we are only talking about Christmas day. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) made an interesting contribution from the perspective of a Jewish Member of Parliament. The Minister is a good Catholic Member of Parliament and views with great distaste people trading on Christmas day, but we live in a multicultural society and people might demand similar legislation for days that are as holy to their faiths. The costs could escalate. Where would it all end?
The House needs to be aware that we are not just talking about one day in the year and a limited cost. Pressure will undoubtedly be put on the House for other equally important holy days in the Muslim and Jewish faiths to get similar treatment. Why should Christians alone have the great privilege that if stores open on Christmas day, they must be closed down and the inspectors' costs sent to Parliament?

Mr. Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that any money that might be expended on enforcing the Bill—and the Minister needs to clarify how much will be spent—would be better used to provide more hospital operations over Christmas for people who are in agony and cannot wait any longer, rather than wasting it on inspectors in case an illicit Father Christmas is still trading a day after everyone else has stopped?

Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. However, the strict guillotine procedure that is always imposed on us means that time is running out. In the remaining minute or so, perhaps the Minister will explain how much the measure will cost. That is all we want to know.

It being three quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(b) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With permission, I shall put together motions 8 to 10.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
That the draft Relevant Authorities (General Principles) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 79) on School Standards, Support of Educational Budgets and Costs of Transitional Funding (HC 355), which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
That the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 27th March, be approved.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

SOCIAL SECURITY
That the draft Social Security (Breach of Community Order) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.

Division deferred till Wednesday 4 April, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER),

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 10th April, do adjourn till Monday 23rd April.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Question agreed to.

Motorway Service Stations

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving you cause earlier to reprimand me for bringing work into the Chamber. Like the lame man who lay beside the pool at Bethesda and was anxious to reach the pool when the waters were disturbed, I was afraid that I might miss my Adjournment debate because I was not sure whether the preceding debates would take their full allotted time. Given the lateness of the hour, I was anxious not to miss the opportunity.
I want to put on record my gratitude to Mr. Speaker for calling the debate. I have tried on several occasions to obtain a debate on motorway service stations. The subject would have made a good Westminster Hall debate because several hon. Members have such service stations in their constituencies and others have experience of them. We could have held a wider debate on the subject.
A propos of that, I want to refer briefly to two contributions that I have received. First, the Royal Automobile Club Foundation pointed out that an Office of Fair Trading report on motorway service areas, published in December 2000, suggested that they provide poor value for money, and poor food and refreshments. I am sure that several hon. Members might have something to say about that.
Secondly, during last year's Easter holidays, the Automobile Association carried out an interesting survey of European motorway service stations. The United Kingdom's position is not good. Of the 10 UK service stations inspected, five were rated as acceptable, three as poor and two as very poor. Overall, UK service stations were rated as below average in Europe.
In that context, I want to consider a decision that relates to my constituency and directly affects that of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr Taylor), who is present tonight. He has campaigned hard with me to oppose the decision to allow the construction of a motorway service station in the Meriden gap. It is an interim decision, and until it is final, I assure the Government that we shall fight it tooth and nail.
For hon. Members who are present and not familiar with the location, and anyone who may read Hansard tomorrow morning, the Meriden gap is a narrow strip of green belt between Coventry and Birmingham. It is five miles wide at the point that we area discussing. In my maiden speech, I spoke about the need to protect the Meriden gap. Less than four years later, we are fighting hard to resist a development that my hon. Friend and I and our local authority implacably oppose. Solihull metropolitan borough council refused to grant planning permission for it as well as for two other developments in the same area. All my constituents oppose it; my postbag is flooded with protest mail from them.
I ask the Minister to extend an invitation on behalf of my constituents to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to examine the site. However, I stress that he should pick the right time of day. There is no point in travelling to the bridge over the M42 near junction 6 at an off-peak time. He should

come with me in the rush hour to see the gridlocked traffic. There is nose-to-tail traffic in both directions. The Secretary of State should therefore reconsider the decision.
There are a variety of reasons for the severe congestion on that stretch of the M42. I am sure that hon. Members who have to use it are familiar with them. The service station is located south of junction 6, which carries all the traffic to Birmingham international airport and Birmingham international railway station. It is the junction with the A45 that serves Birmingham city centre and Coventry. Exhibitions at the National Exhibition Centre, for which the road is the exit, are seasonal causes of intense congestion. When the spring or autumn fair is on, that queue can stretch right back to junction 3 of the M42. Any hon. Member who uses the M6, which is notorious for its congestion, will know that any delay or heavy traffic on that road backs up to junctions 7 and 6 of the M42. We are talking about a highly congested stretch of motorway.
Hon. Members may also recall that not so many years ago, that location was the site of a terrible motorway pile-up, which is still alive in the memories of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend. None the less, the Government have chosen to justify their choice of location with reference to road safety.
The motorway service area policy statement says that the Government wish to concentrate on the completion of a network of motorway service areas at 30-mile intervals. Apparently,
where there is a gap of greater than 30 miles between MSAs, it is necessary to give greater weight to the needs of motorists".
The Highway Code recommends that motorists stop to rest after two hours, so there is an inconsistency between the policy of having intervals of 30 miles—roughly half an hour—for motorists to take a break, and the two-hour interval recommended in the Highway Code.
It is also difficult to square the fact that motorists' interests are paramount with the Prime Minister's most recent assertions about his party's environmental credentials. He said that we need to put business, technology and environmental protection together. In this instance, however, environmental protection has been sacrificed in the interests of the motorist.
There are a number of contradictions in the decision made on the motorway service area application. The interim report says:
The Secretary of State agrees that each of the proposed schemes
originally there were three—
would cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt",
and that he also agrees that motorway service area developments on the proposed sites
would have an urbanising effect".
There is a clear acknowledgement that the development would be detrimental to that section of green belt. There is a local site of special scientific interest, and also a problem with the water table. Indeed, a variety of environmental concerns are associated with choosing that site.

Mr. John M. Taylor: My hon. Friend is making a thorough job of cataloguing the misery and anger of our constituents. Will she take account of one


other environmental factor? The fact that such an area will be lit all through the night means that some of our constituents will never again see the night sky from their homes. What a price is that to pay?

Mrs. Spelman: A very high price; light pollution is one of the hazards of the modern age. At our crossroads in the midlands we are prone to suffer that sort of erosion of our environment. My hon. Friend's constituents who live at Catherine-de-Barnes, the hamlet closest to the development, are very anxious about that aspect. There is no question but that there will be environmental harm; the decision is based on the idea that the benefits to the motorist outweigh that harm.
The Government considered some mitigating measures, but they involved providing auxiliary lanes for the motorway, and those, too, have an environmental impact. I am sure that all motorists are familiar with what happens to the traffic when, after a three-lane motorway has been widened to four lanes in one place, it goes back down to three lanes, as would happen to the M42: immediately, there is congestion.
The development has been proposed at a time when the widening of the motorway is under serious consideration as part of the west midlands multimodal traffic scheme, which has not yet been decided on. It therefore seems to me that any question of mitigating measures involving the widening of the motorway should wait for that regional decision to be made.
In the statement, the Secretary of State referred to the important question of setting precedents. He said:
The Meriden gap is 10 km wide at this point and as the proposal is for an on-line facility"—
I am not quite sure what that means, but perhaps the Minister will enlighten us—
which would be situated in relatively open countryside, it would clearly be perceived as a motorway related development and would not set a precedent for further development.
My response to that is, "Do not believe it." The fact that the Secretary of State is "minded" to grant planning permission for a motorway service area that might include provision for a lodge—a Travelodge with 66 lettable bedrooms—will unleash a deluge of applications for hotels in the green belt. Such developments have hitherto been strongly resisted at this point in the Meriden gap, and a number of developers who have had their planning applications in the green belt turned down are looking eagerly at this aspect of the decision.
The decision is being justified because it is thought
unreasonable to deny motorists the opportunity to stop and rest".
I hate to disappoint the Secretary of State, but that hotel, if built in the Meriden gap, will be filled by people attending the NEC. A weary motorist might roll up at the service station in the hope of finding a bed for the night, but he would be most likely to find it fully booked by people attending an event at the NEC. Therefore, I do not think that that argument stands up at all.
Another important point is the footprint. The Secretary of State agreed with the inspector that
as part of a Motorway Service Station, the lodge is inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

He also said:
A lodge would add to the footprint of the built development and have some impact on the openness of the Green Belt.
The size of the footprint is very controversial in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull.
It is significant that, in July 1998, the Under-Secretary, Lord Whitty, made a statement about motorway service areas having a footprint of 5,000 sq ft as a limit, but it was unclear whether that should be taken as applying to the main amenity building or the MSA site as a whole. That has created a loophole for development, which has been exploited in the case of this decision. There is a warning in this case for other hon. Members who may be faced with a similar situation.
At the Catherine-de-Barnes site, the permitted area for a fuel sales building is 360 sq m—I am sorry to switch from imperial to metric measures—but that is in addition to 465 sq m of retail space. The 465 sq m of retail space marries up with the Under-Secretary's statement about 5,000 sq ft. However, unless I am much mistaken, there has been a terrible error here. In the case of Catherine-de-Barnes, the 465 sq m has been conceded, but, in addition to that, there will be an extra 360 sq m for a fuel sales building. Together, that makes 825 sq m, or 8,800 sq ft. That would seem to fly in the face of the limit that the Under-Secretary described, and we seek clarification on that important point.
I can anticipate what the Minister will say. He will say that the previous Government are to blame. They are not. Until 1992, the Department of Transport—as it then was—was responsible for promoting new motorway service areas. Its policy was to provide them at intervals of half an hour's driving time, or of about 30 miles, although when one is driving at 70 mph those figures have to be approximate. The important point is that the previous Government used discretion. A written answer on 24 November 1994 cited a letter from Lawrie Hayes to Sir David Mitchell, in which he stated that
we recognise that there are stretches of motorway where either demand is unlikely ever to support MSAs … or where planning constraints will dictate a lesser frequency … we are prepared to be flexible."—[Official Report, 24 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 262W.]
That is on the record. For the record:
The Conservative Party has a policy of not building on the Green Belt at all and our Environment spokesmen have said they would call this decision in to look at it again. We need similar action, not just warm words from this Government.
In a debate in another place in 1992, the then Government spokesman said:
Any proposal for a motorway service area will be subject to planning permission."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 November 1992; Vol. 540, c. 918.]
That is an important point. Planning permission was refused by the local authority—Solihull metropolitan borough council—and democratically elected local councillors who sit closest to the decision and know the environment best of all, but the Secretary of State has chosen to override that decision, ignore public opinion and back the developer—small wonder that my constituents doubt the Government's commitment to listening to the people.
I have another important point to raise with the Minister, which has been brought to my attention by the Council for the Protection of Rural England, whose representatives—


local people living in the constituencies that will be affected by the change—played an important part in the public inquiry. They say that the inspector's report gives the impression that the Highways Agency was fully represented and section 10 contains eight pages on "The case for the Highways Agency", but what happened was unsatisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull and I attended the inquiry, so I can vouch for that.

Mr. John M. Taylor: We also gave evidence.

Mrs. Spelman: Indeed. The inspector allowed the Highways Agency to get away with submitting written statements rather than offering a witness who could have been cross-examined. The inspector's report relied heavily on the Highways Agency's views on motorway operational matters, but it gave no evidence that was open to cross-examination on need, the operation of the motorway system, signing or the M42 widening, which is needed to enable the Catherine-de-Barnes site to be developed.
Unless I am much mistaken, that was the first occasion on which the Nicholson principle was not obeyed. Under that principle, it should be possible for cross-examination on the main evidence to be conducted. That is an important point, because the opinion of the Highways Agency is crucial to the interim nature of the decision. As I understand it, its finality will hinge on whether the Highways Agency is satisfied about its agreement to widening the motorway at that point. Its non-appearance for cross-examination fundamentally undermines the value of the inquiry and its findings.
I strongly urge the Government to think again. The site that they have chosen for a motorway service area stands at the narrowest point of the Meriden gap. In the same segment of land, we find Birmingham international airport and the NEC—both public amenities of wider regional, national and international significance. What is needed is clear strategic planning for that vulnerable strip of land. It has suffered for too long from piecemeal planning decisions, such as those that collectively led to the erosion of the Meriden gap.
The projections for the expansion of air travel are bound to lead to pressure to expand such an amenity, yet the service station site would lie at the foot of any runway extension and it would be uncomfortably close to the flight path. That element was not discussed in any great detail at the inquiry, so I simply ask the Minister, is it wise to allow the development to be built in such proximity to the flight path?
To keep pace with international demand for exhibition sites, the NEC had to expand. Although I hated to see green belt consumed in such a way, I recognised that our NEC needed to remain competitive. However, that aspect has to be considered hand in hand with what happens to the transport network at that point in the midlands motorway crossroads.
My constituency contains pockets of deprivation with huge unemployment, but the motorway service station would be yet another employment opportunity plonked down in the countryside with no public transport available, so local residents would get all the hassle, but none of the benefit. Those are strategic issues and I appeal to the Government to stop and think to try, like an eagle, to fly above the Meriden gap and look down at the airport, the NEC, the four-track widening of the west coast main

line and the building of the Birmingham northern relief road; and to stop and, in strategic terms, think about whether it is really the right site. The development would stick out like a sore thumb in the green Arden pasture land, next to a gridlocked motorway. It would be a white elephant.
The dome stands as a monument to misplanning; let us not make the same mistake a second time. If the Government want to prove that they listen, if they want to claim their green credentials and if they want to demonstrate that they have strategic planning capability, let them please think again.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I begin in the usual way, by congratulating the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on securing the debate and giving the House an opportunity to discuss current proposals for a motorway service area on the M42 in her constituency. I also listened with great interest to what was said by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). In the limited time available, I shall try to deal with as many of the innumerable points that have been made as possible.
It may help if I first explain the Government's policy on the spacing of motorway service areas, as it is against that background that decisions on individual proposals are made. The most recent such advice took the form of a statement issued by my noble Friend Lord Whitty in July 1998. This is a subject on which Ministers in successive Administrations have given advice at intervals over the years, which has inevitably caused periodic changes of emphasis; but perhaps the most noticeable feature has been the consistency of the underlying approach.
Motorway service areas exist to fulfil a road safety function by offering motorists an opportunity to stop and rest. If they are to meet that need, they must be provided at regular intervals. Of course, it might be argued from the motorist's point of view that the more motorway service areas there are, the better: if they were available every five miles, a driver who wanted to take a break would never be more than about five minutes' drive from a motorway service area where he could do just that. Motorway service areas are large developments, however. They have to be, because to fulfil their road safety function they must be large enough to cater for all the motorists who want to visit them. As motorways run mostly through the countryside rather than towns, most service areas will of necessity be in rural areas. Motorway service area spacing policy is, therefore, about achieving a balance. On the one hand, we must provide adequate opportunities for drivers to stop and rest; on the other, we recognise the need to protect the countryside from excessive development.
The consistent view across all Governments has been that that balance could best be achieved by placing service areas at intervals of about 30 miles. On the assumption of normal motorway speeds, that meant that drivers had the chance to stop roughly every half hour. It also meant that the need for large developments in the countryside was reduced to the point at which such developments were genuinely exceptional cases. In other words, they might—I emphasise the word "might"—properly be regarded as exceptions to the presumption against development in the green belt.
It has been suggested that my noble Friend's statement went further than earlier statements of Government views on motorway service areas spacing, and that it made inevitable the approval of at least one of the M42 proposals. If anything, the reverse is true. In fact, the statement emphasised that having a motorway service area every 30 miles was by no means an absolute requirement. It certainly stressed that the Government's prime concern would be completion of a network of 30-mile service areas where that had not already been achieved; but it also said, in so many words, that that did not amount to a presumption in favour of proposals that would contribute to completion of the 30-mile network. They would continue to be subject to the normal operation of the land use planning system. It is that system that allows for the merits of a particular proposal to be tested against other considerations, including those that the hon. Lady has raised.

Mrs. Spelman: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hill: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not. I have little time, and much to say. If there is an opportunity later, however, I shall certainly yield to her.
It is worth recording that one of the reasons for my noble Friend's statement was that the previous advice had encouraged the idea that 30-mile motorway service areas should be supplemented by in-fill sites at intervals of about 15 miles. My noble Friend was concerned that that approach had not achieved its avowed aim of increasing competition and choice. He therefore emphasised the Government's wish to concentrate on completing the 30-mile network. Far from encouraging additional motorway service area development, the statement moved towards an emphasis on providing them less frequently, but at locations where the need was especially acute.
The fact is that there are some significant gaps in the provision of motorway services on that part of the network, which a site in the Solihull area would fill. Examples cited in the decision letter included the gap of 49 miles between the existing services at Warwick and Hilton Park, and the gap of 68 miles between Warwick and the proposed services at junction 4 of the M54 near Telford.
I stress again that the existence of those gaps in the 30-mile motorway service area network did not mean that approval to one or other of the M42 proposals was a foregone conclusion. Both the inspector and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions weighed that consideration against all the competing arguments, including the need to avoid development in the green belt in the Meriden gap, but they concluded that the needs of motorists were sufficient to overcome those and other objections. They did so only after very careful consideration of all the issues. I hope that the hon. Lady will understand if I explain that I cannot now seek to overturn that decision on the basis solely of the matters that we have been able to consider in the short time available to us tonight.
I hope that the hon. Lady will not think that I am unsympathetic to her concerns. I recognise the anxieties of

her constituents. I particularly sympathise with the view that, if an area of open countryside and, more particularly, green belt is to be sacrificed in the interests of road safety, the scale of development should be the minimum that can sensibly be achieved.
I know that, with that in mind, the hon. Lady has been particularly concerned that a motorway service area at Catherine-de-Barnes might incorporate significant shopping and leisure facilities, which will quickly transform it from somewhere for motorists to take a necessary break into an out-of-town retail or leisure development in its own right. I share her concerns. That is why successive Governments have pursued a policy of preventing motorway service areas from becoming destinations in their own right.
It is reasonable enough that a motorway service area should incorporate a shop, and all, without exception, do so. Whether every single item that such shops offer is absolutely necessary in the course of a journey is perhaps a moot point, but little would be gained by having an army of Government inspectors policing the list of items on offer. Even if we were to do so, there would always be someone for whom a motorway service area was the most convenient place to buy a pint of milk at 3 am. Because we can never be absolutely sure that a service area will never be a destination, at least for a few people, we back the policy with a requirement that no more than 5,000 sq ft at any motorway service area should be devoted to retail uses, and no more than 1,000 sq ft to leisure use.
As I have said, the aim of the policy is to ensure that motorway service areas do not mushroom into vast out-of-town retail or leisure parks, contrary to wider Government planning and land use policies. I know that the hon. Lady has been concerned that the specific limits that have been placed on retail and leisure use at Catherine-de-Barnes are higher than those that I have quoted because they take no account of retail space within the fuel area. It is true that Lord Whitty's policy statement was not specific on that point. We will therefore want to consider the need for more detailed guidance on that in preparing a circular on motorway service area policy, which we expect to issue later this year.
It is very unlikely however, that the amount of space given over to a sales area within the petrol filling station will ever make an appreciable difference to the total land take of a motorway service area, so although it is an issue that we will clearly need to consider further, I do not believe that it is so crucial in this case that it obliges us to revisit the decision that has already been taken.
The hon. Lady will be well aware that the decision letter that the Secretary of State issued on 6 March was an interim one. Permission for the Catherine-de-Barnes proposal was conditional on my right hon. Friend's being satisfied about the nature and effect of the associated highway works that would be required on the M42.
The works themselves are likely to be substantial. They will need to be, in order to address the safety issues that would arise from the increased weaving movements in the vicinity of the proposed service area. The Secretary of State has therefore indicated that he will take a final decision on the planning applications in the light of the outcome of continuing discussions between the developer


and the Highways Agency on the feasibility of additional lanes between the service area and junction 6 of the M42, as identified at the public inquiry.
The hon. Lady has raised a number of other issues. I will peruse Hansard and write to her on those matters. I am grateful to her for giving us the opportunity to debate what are important issues. I understand that the decision to give the go-ahead to the motorway service area at Catherine-de-Barnes, even if it is subject to further consideration of the implications of the associated highway works, is not the one for which she and many of

her constituents had been hoping. However, I hope that I have been able to give her some reassurances; not least, I hope I have reassured her that Government policy on motorway service area spacing does take very seriously the need to balance the advantages to motorists of regular services against the need to avoid—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fifteen minutes past Twelve midnight.